News Epic Games Store

[prudis]

and once again gaming press turned Wester words into another clickbait shit news about Steam?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Ubisoft and Bethesda and a number of their peers regularly deeply discount successful games within 3 months. Sometimes a mere month after release. Ubisoft are especially prone to it.

AT RETAIL.
Because those games AREN'T successful, and retailers are trying to clear stocks.

When a retailer has a fucking ton of boxes of Prey 2 that aren't selling, so knocks them down to 50% off, and then they do start selling, its insnely disingeuous to then claim that it was selling 'okay' if a digital seller then follows suit to match that discount.

Give a damn example of your claims; where a digital distributor is the first retailer offering a significant discount, on a successful product, within a month or less of release.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

They should try to build their own distribution system and infrastructure to find out. Can't possible be that hard, right?

Gamersgate, but it seems it wasn't that easy to run after all.

 

[Aelphaeis Mangarae]

Paradox Interactive: "The 70/30 revenue split is outrageous"

The 70/30 revenue split offered to developers by most platform holders is "outrageous," according to Paradox Interactiv…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Speaking of Paradox, remember when Paradox requested that SteamSpy stop showing their sales data? Paradox data removed from SteamSpy by request

It is undeniable that PC game releases are heavily pirated. A simple glance at any public tracker after the release of a popular game will show a huge number of people choosing to pirate the game. There more popular the game, the heavier it tends to be pirated. The dispute is how to interpret this. And to be fair, it's impossible to create a scientific study to prove or disprove anything involving game sales. They're just too fickle. Did Monster Hunter World sell so many copies because of Denuvo? In spite of Denuvo? Would the game have sold better without it? Would it have sold worse? Without an alternate universe where Monster Hunter World didn't have Denuvo, we can't say for certain.

Steam strove to curb piracy through being more convenient than piracy (because people are lazy), and also through things like effective regional pricing so that people could afford to buy games (because money is tight). However, this hasn't stopped the piracy of games. Piracy is still extremely commonplace.

The counterargument is that "piracy doesn't equal lost sales" and "piracy is free advertising" and all that stuff. And there is some degree of truth to some of those arguments. Piracy in moderation can have a similar effect to Game Pass when it comes to word of mouth. But at the end of the day, you have a situation where thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people are choosing to play a game without paying for it. The PC market has a huge piracy problem that doesn't exist currently in the console market at least for now.

Nintendo are right to be paranoid about Switch hacking. Because it doesn't matter if the Nintendo e-shop is pretty good, and if game prices are more reasonable. If people can play Switch games without paying for them, many people will do so. The convenience of digital distribution helps curb piracy, but free stuff is extremely appealing. The PSP had its knees cut out from under it through piracy.

The PC market typically doesn't behave quite like the console market. The willingness of PC gamers to buy games instead of stealing them despite stealing them being incredibly easy is remarkable. But piracy is pervasive on PC. The argument that it has no impact has always been self-serving.

I'm not being critical of Valve here. Valve making PC gaming accessible via Steam did more to curb piracy than any DRM has. But there's a hole in the bucket. People are playing games without paying for them. Some of these people might refuse to buy the game if they can't pirate it. But if piracy isn't an option, then people have to buy the game if they want to play it.

 

[Copons]

Btw 70/30 might very well be too much, for what us, Wester, and anybody else outside Valve know.
What I'm kinda annoyed with is this tendency of forgetting that Steam is not just a CDN with a cart (while on the other hand EGS is indeed a CDN without a cart ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)).
I wonder how it would feel if we started to call the thousands of micro-DLCs on every single Paradox game "cash grabs" instead of "supporting devs" as we Paradox fans like to do every now and then.

Speaking of Paradox, remember when Paradox requested that SteamSpy stop showing their sales data? Paradox data removed from SteamSpy by request

I didn't remember that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

 

[lashman]

It is undeniable that PC game releases are heavily pirated.

Piracy is still extremely commonplace.

The PC market has a huge piracy problem

The PSP had its knees cut out from under it through piracy.

again:

i'm not really interested in opinions ...

i need cold hard numbers ... studies ... something ... anything at all

But if piracy isn't an option, then people have to buy the game if they want to play it.

... and most of them just won't buy the game then .... it wouldn't be a magical 90% gain of sales if piracy suddenly wasn't an option
that's why the "piracy doesn't equal lost sales" is correct ... and supported by a study

 

[Copons]

Gamersgate, but it seems it wasn't that easy to run after all.

TIL!

 

[SRossi]

again:

i'm not really interested in opinions ...

i need cold hard numbers ... studies ... something ... anything at all

don't interrupt his fantasy with facts.

now it begins to get boring. that dude was fun for a while but his shtick is old now.

 

[Aelphaeis Mangarae]

Give a damn example of your claims; where a digital distributor is the first retailer offering a significant discount, on a successful product, within a month or less of release.

I don't have immediate data for the retail pricing of these games, but two examples that come to mind are Doom 2016 and Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. My understanding is that Doom 2016 was a huge success for Id Software. The game has sold between 2 and 5 million copies on Steam. That's crazy good. But the game released in May 2016, and was 40% off by June 2016. DOOM · AppID: 379720

Assassin's Creed: Odyssey was one of the best selling games on Steam in 2018. It was the best selling Assassin's Creed during the current generation. It released in October 2018, and it received a 33% discount in November, and a 50% discount in December. Assassin's Creed Odyssey · AppID: 812140 The game was 50% off less than 3 months after release despite being one of the top games on Steam.

This is why people now say, "I'll just wait for a discount." Because more often than not, the discount is coming really soon regardless of how well the game sells. Bethesda have a clear trend of aggressive discounts regardless of how well the game sells. They didn't use to do this. Fallout 4 stayed at full price for something like 6 months. This change has happened within the past 3 years.

Ubisoft took a slightly curious tactic with Far Cry 5. They kept the game's price high with minor discounts until November/December, then did a 50% discount. But then in Feb 2019, they suddenly slashed the price with a 75% discount so that Far Cry 5 could be a sort of bundle game for New Dawn. They took an extremely successful $60 game and slashed its value to $15 so they could bundle it with a $40 standalone expansion, which backfired to some degree.

 

[m_dorian]

I like Paradox games in general. I have them on ignore due to their horrible DLC scheme.
I feel that my ignore is justified and I am not a steam supporter, if a game is on GOG too I buy from them.
So, eff you PDX.

 

[BernardoOne]

I dont buy the argument that people must see a discount in order to sell on Steam. If that were true, Steam would be a wasteland most of the time, which clearly it isnt

It's a outright lie. Most titles sell the most at launch. Our good friend Sergey even said this himself, with actual Steam data

 

[Aelphaeis Mangarae]

and most of them just won't buy the game then .... it wouldn't be a magical 90% gain of sales if piracy suddenly wasn't an option

Of course it wouldn't be 90% on average.

that's why the "piracy doesn't equal lost sales" is correct ... and supported by a study

A study with a 45% error margin, which is catastrophically bad. Interesting to read, but useless to build any kind of argument on. You might notice that neither "piracy is a problem" nor "piracy is not problem" arguments actually have reliable data to back them up. This is partially because the problem has no controls. You can't compare two equal scenarios where piracy is and isn't present to determine the impact. It's ultimately just theories, past patterns, extremely unreliable surveys, and speculation.

What is not speculation, however, is that Steam and other digital platforms has not caused piracy to disappear. DRM has been successful in completely eliminating piracy for specific periods, but it's difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

A study with a 45% error margin, which is catastrophically bad. Interesting to read, but useless to build any kind of argument on.

Mate, you're building your entire argument on "look at the trackers", let's just say a study with 45% error margin is still more scientific than that.

 

[Aelphaeis Mangarae]

I didn't remember that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

Paradox seem a bit allergic to transparency. They were one of the highest profile publishers resisting Steam sales data being transparent. Also, SteamSpy creator (and current EGS head honcho) Sergey Galyonkin recently got stroppy with Paradox after that fiasco where Paradox pulled Bloodlines II from the EGS sale.

Mate, you're building your entire argument on "look at the trackers", let's just say a study with 45% error margin is still more scientific than that.

How is using trackers to demonstrate that people are downloading a game without paying for it unscientific? You can't prove how many copies are being pirated on the upper bound, but you can draw fairly accurate estimates of "at least X number of people illegally downloaded this title".

 

[Rosenkrantz]

How is using trackers to demonstrate that people are downloading a game without paying for it unscientific?

Ok then, prepare the data the same way you would show to your uni professor, explain the method you used to estimate the number of downloads and its correlation to the lost sales/games flopping and then we can talk about the scientific merits of "look at the trackers".

 

[fantomena]

Aelphaeis Mangarae Your lack of sources and numbers is disturbing.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't have immediate data for the retail pricing of these games, but two examples that come to mind are Doom 2016 and Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. My understanding is that Doom 2016 was a huge success for Id Software. The game has sold between 2 and 5 million copies on Steam. That's crazy good. But the game released in May 2016, and was 40% off by June 2016. DOOM · AppID: 379720

Doom (PS4) (B00ZF3255A)

Was at 50% off for the console version physical in the same period.
You are looking at cumulative sales post discount to declare it 'a success'.
spoilers: if it was a huge fucking success, it wouldn;t have been 50% slashed at retail

Why aren't you looking at physical pricing?
Do you want to pretend that AC:O wasn't heavily discounted at retail during the fucking Black Friday sales?
Your narrative is shit, and your research doesn't support what you claim in the slightest.

How is using trackers to demonstrate that people are downloading a game without paying for it unscientific? You can't prove how many copies are being pirated on the upper bound, but you can draw fairly accurate estimates of "at least X number of people illegally downloaded this title".

Looking at trackers tells you that a ratio of people greater than 0 but less than 1 will pirate a product instead of paying for it.
That's it.

You have literally zero idea how close that ratio is to 0 or to 1, only that it is somewhere between them,

 

[TioChuck]

Aelphaeis Mangarae dude chill, no body is buying what you trying to say, go drink a beer or something.

 

[MonthOLDpickle]

75% discount

It actually took them 11 months to hit 77% off. Almost a year. Otherwise before 2019 (so 2018) cheapest it was in Dec, was 25$. Both storefronts. I wouldn't really call that a sharp decline considering Nov it actually started to get discounted to 30$. 8 months (well 7 since it released near the end of March) of typ discounts for a new game isn't a sharp discount.

I knew I should have taken the picture of the physical console copy back in 2018 that was cheaper then it has been when it was 2018. It was already 25$ (so around 750$ NT) by Nov.

 

[Ascheroth]

I mean I certainly agree that there are certain publishers who slash their prices hard and fast after launch, making me wait instead.
But I fail to see how any of this is relevant to Valve or Epic. Publishers decide their own discounts and timing.
So, I dunno, can we stop talking about this stuff in here, because it's clear everyone already has an opinion they won't budge on?

 

[Alexandros]

I'm not being critical of Valve here. Valve making PC gaming accessible via Steam did more to curb piracy than any DRM has. But there's a hole in the bucket. People are playing games without paying for them. Some of these people might refuse to buy the game if they can't pirate it. But if piracy isn't an option, then people have to buy the game if they want to play it.

So, to what extent do you believe it affects indie games? How do you explain that most indie games sell better on PC than on other platforms where piracy isn't an issue?

 

[C-Dub]

Blurgh

Paradox Interactive: "The 70/30 revenue split is outrageous"

The 70/30 revenue split offered to developers by most platform holders is "outrageous," according to Paradox Interactiv…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Publishers will be publishers. Of course they're gonna say that a lower cut from the storefront is better than a higher one because they think it instantly means more money in their pocket, and they won't listen to people who tell them that it's a short-sighted strategy because the 30% cut Valve takes pays for a lot of things that make users want to play their games on PC (and more importantly, pay for them). You'd think that Paradox, who does the vast majority of its business on PC, would have a more long term and holistic approach to maintaining the health of their main platform.

The way I see it is if the industry adopts an 88/12 revenue share as Epic wants, then smaller storefronts will go out of business and the larger ones will slim themselves down to the point that their client offers little more in terms of service and features than a torrent client, and we'll see how that ends for these middle sized publishes like Paradox when people are pirating their shit.

 

[Chudah]

The way I see it is if the industry adopts an 88/12 revenue share as Epic wants, then smaller storefronts will go out of business and the larger ones will slim themselves down to the point that their client offers little more in terms of service and features than a torrent client, and we'll see how that ends for these middle sized publishes like Paradox when people are pirating their shit.

I think less criticism of their games is what many of these publishers are after. And if that means killing the online community so that customer reviews and bad word of mouth are harder to come by, they're all for it.

 

[C-Dub]

I think less criticism of their games is what many of these publishers are after. And if that means killing the online community so that customer reviews and bad word of mouth are harder to come by, they're all for it.

They'd be foolish to want that, since the can of worms that is user reviews has been opened and will never close. If you somehow managed to shut down Steam's user review section then someone would find a way to make their own, and it'd probably become rather widely adopted across many storefronts and platforms, whether said storefronts and platforms wanted it (a simple browser plugin could sort that easily).

As I've said many-a-time, they should be careful what they wish for. Valve bringing user reviews in-house has kept people from searching for reviews elsewhere, and if momentum falls behind some sort of cross-platform user review site with the right SEO, a site that has no financial ties or vested interests to the industry like Steam does, then they will be in for it.

 

[unknownhero]

Aelphaeis Mangarae dude chill, no body is buying what you trying to say, go drink a beer or something.

I just put him on ignore, I suggest you all do the same.

 

[NarohDethan]

I also love how people bring the 'R&D' costs for consoles as a justification for the 30% cut for those companies. Breh, that hardware was old back in 2012, sure as shit it doesnt pulls its weight now.

 

[Hektor]

I also love how people bring the 'R&D' costs for consoles as a justification for the 30% cut for those companies. Breh, that hardware was old back in 2012, sure as shit it doesnt pulls its weight now.

I generally do not understand the logic that console manufacturers deserve a higher cut because they chose to force you into their own walled garden eco system,

There's an argument to be had about consoles being sold at a loss (if that is indeed a thing), but even then, PSN and it's ilk should already cover that entirely throughout a generation unless the "loss" would exceed the 200€ per console mark.

It's so weird because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are the primary beneficiaries of locked down console ecosystems.
Would valve be allowed to take 30% if they would have made Steamboxes a mandatory requirement to run steam instead of them being optional devices that everyone can safely ignore?

Microsoft is now giving up on the idea of mandatory microsoft boxes in favor of creating a crossplatform eco-system, so do they lose their right to a 30% cut?

So many questions about this argument.

 

[NarohDethan]

I generally do not understand the logic that console manufacturers deserve a higher cut because they chose to force you into their own walled garden eco system,

There's an argument to be had about consoles being sold at a loss (if that is indeed a thing), but even then, PSN and it's ilk should already cover that entirely throughout a generation unless the "loss" would exceed the 200€ per console mark.

It's so weird because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are the primary beneficiaries of locked down console ecosystems.
Would valve be allowed to take 30% if they would have made Steamboxes a mandatory requirement to run steam instead of them being optional devices that everyone can safely ignore?

Microsoft is now giving up on the idea of mandatory microsoft boxes in favor of creating a crossplatform eco-system, so do they lose their right to a 30% cut?

So many questions about this argument.

" It always have been this way, dammit! You PC people think you're special! "

 

[NarohDethan]

I hate using them, but at least Nintendo’s consoles have gimmicks to somewhat justify their “R&D cost” tax. The Switch, Wii, 3/DS, etc.

PS4/5, XB1/2, much less so.

And even then, Nintendo keeps their games expensive forever. Plus their shitty online service.

 

[Knurek]

" It always have been this way, dammit! You PC people think you're special! "

No, it wasn't.
It was way, way worse before digital came in.

 

[NarohDethan]

No, it wasn't.
It was way, way worse before digital came in.

I know but I've literally hear that argument before

 

[Arsene]

And even then, Nintendo keeps their games expensive forever. Plus their shitty online service.

I just sold a bunch of my switch games I bought over 2 years ago for $50cad each so im definitely not complaining about them keeping their titles at full price.

 

[lmimmfn]

As a consumer how does this reduction in revenue split affect me? It doesn't therefore I do not care. Show me something that will benefit me Epic and then we can talk!

 

[prudis]

As a consumer how does this reduction in revenue split affect me? It doesn't therefore I do not care. Show me something that will benefit me Epic and then we can talk!

it doesnt ... they just want to guilt trip you

 

[lmimmfn]

it doesnt ... they just want to guilt trip you

Pretty much. I will agree for indies it is a hell of a deal and i've no problem with that( other than the Kickstarting a game with the intention of steam codes and switching to Epic Exclusive ), more power to them, but developers using large publishers( who will swallow the full difference between Steam cut vs Epic cut ) I couldn't care less about, their call their issue, the poor git working insane hours to deliver his/her code doesnt receive a cent extra and neither does the consumer, its middle man enrichment nothing more, nothing less,

 

[lashman]

Pretty much. I will agree for indies it is a hell of a deal and i've no problem with that( other than the Kickstarting a game with the intention of steam codes and switching to Epic Exclusive ), more power to them, but developers using large publishers( who will swallow the full difference between Steam cut vs Epic cut ) I couldn't care less about, their call their issue, the poor git working insane hours to deliver his/her code doesnt receive a cent extra and neither does the consumer, its middle man enrichment nothing more, nothing less,

it's trickle down economics all the way ... the customers (and some developers with publishers, i guess) are getting vague promises of things getting better somewhere down the line ... and then absolutely nothing changes, or it gets even worse

just like games were supposed to be cheaper because of digital distribution ... anyone still remember those promises? yeah ....

 

[lmimmfn]

it's trickle down economics all the way ... the customers (and some developers with publishers, i guess) are getting vague promises of things getting better somewhere down the line ... and then absolutely nothing changes, or it gets even worse

just like games were supposed to be cheaper because of digital distribution ... anyone still remember those promises? yeah ....

exactly, this whole 30%/10% cut whatever is absolutely meaningless to everyone yet gets so much publicity and some much conversation when in fact it means f*** all, it means nothing to anyone, absolutely nothing

And erm, its very nice to be able to give an actual opinion on a forum without getting banned

 

[lashman]

exactly, this whole 30%/10% cut whatever is absolutely meaningless to everyone yet gets so much publicity and some much conversation when in fact it means f*** all, it means nothing to anyone, absolutely nothing

well i'm sure it means something to the indie devs (which are pretty much the only ones who have an actual real excuse to care about it) ... but yeah - for big successful devs (and even more so - for the publishers) it means only one thing - getting even more money, which they definitely aren't in desperate need of ....

(oh, and you can curse, lol)

 

[lmimmfn]

well i'm sure it means something to the indie devs (which are pretty much the only ones who have an actual real excuse to care about it) ... but yeah - for big successful devs (and even more so - for the publishers) it means only one thing - getting even more money, which they definitely aren't in desperate need of ....

(oh, and you can curse, lol)

Indies, yes of course, i have no problem with that and they should swarm to the Epic store but of course in a cost benefit analysis. IF the Epic store doesnt provide the same basic features that we have been accustomed to for years on Steam, im not going into it but there's the list we all know so thhey have to weigh that up vs potential number of consumers etc. The crux there is that Epic wont just take anyone, theyre selective on who they want on the store and for sure its mainly related to increasing their store user base.

(oh, and you can curse, lol)

Gotta admit, im so fucked up from that 'other' place im still reluctant to relax 100% when posting

 

[lashman]

Indies, yes of course, i have no problem with that and they should swarm to the Epic store but of course in a cost benefit analysis. IF the Epic store doesnt provide the same basic features that we have been accustomed to for years on Steam, im not going into it but there's the list we all know so thhey have to weigh that up vs potential number of consumers etc. The crux there is that Epic wont just take anyone, theyre selective on who they want on the store and for sure its mainly related to increasing their store user base.

yes, exactly ... the vast majority of developers/publishers epic want already have plenty of money

 

[gabbo]

yes, exactly ... the vast majority of developers/publishers epic want already have plenty of money

Or at least enough name recognition that they can get the enthusiast press to run pieces on them/their games without much trouble, which will lead to greater mind share on a store even as crowded as Steam.
Like, I'm sure Epic would love to get Hello Games onboard (unless they have and I missed it). They're indie but hardly hurting for cash or name recognition and they'd probably have to weigh pissing off a user base that actually stuck with them with their first disaster of a release vs taking the money and losing a chunk of that just so epic can put up a 'No Man's Sky dev signs on to EGS'

 

[lashman]

Or at least enough name recognition that they can get the enthusiast press to run pieces on them/their games without much trouble, which will lead to greater mind share on a store even as crowded as Steam.
Like, I'm sure Epic would love to get Hello Games onboard (unless they have and I missed it). They're indie but hardly hurting for cash or name recognition and they'd probably have to weigh pissing off a user base that actually stuck with them with their first disaster of a release vs taking the money and losing a chunk of that just so epic can put up a 'No Man's Sky dev signs on to EGS'

oh, absolutely

 

[Sadrac]

'm not being critical of Valve here. Valve making PC gaming accessible via Steam did more to curb piracy than any DRM has. But there's a hole in the bucket. People are playing games without paying for them. Some of these people might refuse to buy the game if they can't pirate it. But if piracy isn't an option, then people have to buy the game if they want to play it.

First of all, sorry for my English
One point that come to my mind readind this is that there are a lot of people paying for games and not playing them. I think that a point to consider

 

[Arsene]

Honestly I have so many games in my backlog, me buying a new game is basically like me donating to the developer, because who the hell knows if I'll ever even get to it.

This is so relatable it hurts. I got backpay from my old job a few days ago and bought a ton of games with it that I have yet to touch.

Maybe ill play bloodstained in 6 months from now.

 

[ISee]

The difference between Valves PC market strategy and Epics PC market strategy can be summed up by two famous examples.

Valves iron grasp over the market

Epic trying to liberate us

Of course both companies are here to make money. But the approach is very different.

EGS is fighting the costumers, tries to shackle the market, but more importantly they focus on benefiting the people behind games: the publishers.

Valve is far more open minded and tries to benefit the costumers over the publishers. A good example for that are game refunds. A sensationelle feature that forces publishers to release better optimized games. Family sharing is also worth mentioning, buy a game and when you are offline your family can play it. That's hell of a deal for consumers! I bought Metro Exodus and both my brother and me played through it. Fantastic deal for both of us, DeepSilver not so much.

Those two, different approaches are the reason why people are behind valve and not epic. It's not because they are stupid sheep. It's not because this is some kind of strange console warrior attitude. Valve worked hard, for many years to change people minds from "Steam=online DRM" to "it's a good, non restrictive service". Valve managed to do so by embarrassing the people they do business with, the gamers.

Epic doesn't care about their clientele, they tread them like sheep that need to be forced.

The choice between epic and valve is easy.

 

[Alexandros]

The difference between Valves PC market strategy and Epics PC market strategy can be summed up by two famous examples.

Valves iron grasp over the market

Epic trying to liberate us

Of course both companies are here to make money. But the approach is very different.

EGS is fighting the costumers, tries to shackle the market, but more importantly they focus on benefiting the people behind games: the publishers.

Valve is far more open minded and tries to benefit the costumers over the publishers. A good example for that are game refunds. A sensationelle feature that forces publishers to release better optimized games. Family sharing is also worth mentioning, buy a game and when you are offline your family can play it. That's hell of a deal for consumers! I bought Metro Exodus and both my brother and me played through it. Fantastic deal for both of us, DeepSilver not so much.

Those two, different approaches are the reason why people are behind valve and not epic. It's not because they are stupid sheep. It's not because this is some kind of strange console warrior attitude. Valve worked hard, for many years to change people minds from "Steam=online DRM" to "it's a good, non restrictive service". Valve managed to do so by embarrassing the people they do business with, the gamers.

Epic doesn't care about their clientele, they tread them like sheep that need to be forced.

The choice between epic and valve is easy.

Good post. Valve is offering incentives to customers so that they choose Valve's service on their own free will. Epic tries to force them because they know they have a shit service that no one would freely choose. What makes their choice of strategy worse is that they have the funds and the clout to compete in a customer-friendly way but they chose not to. So fuck them.

 

[lashman]

Hello Everyone,

Regarding the recently announced Epic Games Store exclusive, all of us here at YSNET, Deep Silver and Epic are taking the matter with utmost concern and would like to clarify the circumstances leading to the decision and offer backers options for moving forward.



As noted in the updates and survey at launch, we had originally planned for PC distribution through Steam. Taking publishing and sales considerations into account, YSNET and Deep Silver agreed to our partnership with Epic Games Store on PC version distribution. As a publishing partner, Deep Silver has greatly contributed not only to sales and marketing, but to scaling up the game so there is more Shenmue III to begin with. Also, Epic Games has been with us from the start of the project when we adopted Unreal Engine 4 for development, and have given us their support throughout the development process.



In response to backers who have requested Steam keys for their rewards, we discussed offering the keys on the day of release. However, coordination with the sales policies of the involved companies was untenable, and as a result we are not able to make a day one distribution option for Steam keys available.



That we are not able to offer Steam keys for Kickstarter rewards at the time of the game’s release is a great disappointed and inconvenience for those backers who were expecting to receive them. We deeply apologize for the unrest caused by the announcement.



Response Policy

The team would like to offer the following:



Version Availability

a. PC Physical: Package (Disc) ＋ EGS Key

b. PC Digital: EGS Key

c. PS4 Physical: Package (Disc)

d. PS4 Digital: PSN Voucher Code

*If selecting either the PC Physical or PC Digital version, an option to also receive a Steam key one year later will be available. Backers must manually select this option in the survey to receive the Steam key.

**If you had previously selected PC and want to change to PS4 or vice versa, you may do so.



Survey Implementation

We are currently working on the necessary changes to the backer survey system. We ask for your patience as there will be a short wait while the preparations are made. Once the survey changes have been implemented, there will be an announcement here in the updates with details and notice of the survey response period. (Changes to your shipping address may still be made through the backer survey up until shipping begins.)



Concerning Refunds

Along with Deep Silver and Epic Games, we have agreed that should the above proposal not be acceptable to backers, refund requests will be honored.

Details concerning the refund request process will be announced in a following update. We ask for your patience until that time.

*In the case rewards within your reward tier, such as in-game content, have already been created and implemented, a full refund may not be possible.



PS4 Region Selection

PS4 regions are automatically set based on the country information answered the through your backer survey. However, there will be an option through the backer survey that will allow you to change your PS4 region during the Survey Response Period. If you would like to change your PS4 region, you will be able to select from four regions: US, EU, Japan and Asia. An announcement will be made when the option is added to the survey.

SIEE: Europe / Middle East / Africa / Oceania

SIEA: North America / Middle America / South America

SIE Japan: Japan

SIE Asia: Asia (excl. Mainland China and Japan)



PC Physical version

The PC Physical version will be delivered on disk. However, the disk will contain the Epic Games Store installer and not the actual game data.

*Please note, if your region selection differs from the PS4 system region or the console setting, PlayStation™Network online services or DLC may not function properly.

**Also, please be aware that a PS4 "cross region" selection may cause a shipping delay.



About stretch goal

We have provided below an explanation on differences between the stretch goals that were promised during the campaign and the actual elements implemented in the final version.



Stretch Goals Reached and Final Implementation





Some stretch goals that were reached during the campaign were not able to be implemented. There were also stretch goals not reached that were able to be implemented. Development began in line with the stretch goal content, but with the addition of sales partners during production, we were able to increase our development budget. In order to maximize game quality under the adjusted budget, game planning was fundamentally altered and ultimately allowed us to incorporate a number of different elements beyond our original expectations. Listed here are the major changes.



Campaign Stretch Goal Elements

Achieved stretch goal elements not implemented

・Character Perspective System (Implementation could not be achieved in this game.)



Achieved stretch goal elements changed

・Skill Tree System was changed to the Skill Book System to better fit the battling style.

・Baisha area changed to Fortified Castle area. Mini-games, infiltration event, battle event, investigation and battle event have been implemented in the Fortified Castle area.



Stretch goal elements not achieved but implemented

・Please see the image above. 10 of the unreached elements will be included in the game.



Non-Stretch Goal Elements

Story Improvements

・Shenmue III begins the day after Shenmue II leaves off. The story now includes more cinematic scenes and nostalgic flashbacks to naturally draw new players in (and fans back in) to the world of Shenmue.



Scaled Up Free Roaming Enviroment

・Initially, the Guilin area was to be organized into three areas: Bailu, Choubu (Niaowu), and Baisha, but to accommodate major additions and changes to game elements, Baisha became Fortified Castle area, and focus shifted to expanding Choubu (Niaowu). We have in effect been able to achieve a scale greater than that of Shenmue II and bring the fun of an "open world" to life. To better experience quests and events, NPCs and things to interact with in the cities have been multiplied beyond what was originally envisioned making for a more complete Shenmue experience.



Powered Up Battle System

・With the inclusion of the Skill Book System and the Dojo System, you can train or have matches any time you want for deeper, more immersive play. Battle difficulty can be changed in-game to be enjoyable for beginners all the way to experts.



Game Cycle Improvements

・Story progression, skill acquisition, training, mini-games, jobs and other elements that were independent from each other in previous games have been worked to flow into a singular game cycle.




Message from Yu Suzuki

I first want to thank all of you for your enduring support from the bottom of my heart. This announcement was made in the coordination of all our partners. As such, it was not presented in a timely fashion which I apologize for. We have at last been able to report the results of the project team's review of the EGS exclusive distribution deal.



The project team is currently concentrating on finishing up to release the game. We are working hard to deliver a game better than hoped even if by a little for the announced release date. Along with the significant project changes at the heart of this announcement, there have been many other changes since our original assumptions. I believe, however, that the game overall has been strengthened and that Shenmue III has assuredly been transformed and is heading in a positive direction.



Thank you always for your support.

 

[BAN PUNCHER]

tl;dr "Thanks for getting Shenmue III off the ground when nobody else would talk to us but now the popular kids want to hang out so could you, like, go away?"

 

[lashman]

tl;dr "Thanks for getting Shenmue III off the ground when nobody else would talk to us but now the popular kids want to hang out so could you, like, go away?"

pretty much, yeah

 

[Flips]

.