Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
Epic never had a store prior to this current one. You must be thinking of a different developer.
Yes, Epic has 2 step authentication, they had it for over a year now.
There is security, anybody who got hacked it was due to them not practicing safe habits, people who got hacked on Fortnite are for the same reasons that people get hacked on Steam and that is falling for social engineering.
There is no spyware, the idea that it is spyware has been debunked
https://nickcano.com/epic-games-spyware/
You needing to go into insults is immature and shows ignorance on your part. You are calling someone as missing a brain because they are a pc gamer where they feel games are more important than some store features.
Right now there is more evidence to support there are no loss of sales for being exclusive to Epic in general.
Also Double Damage stated in thier past experiences most sales happen after the first year anyways. So it is far more likely they'll end up with more money and better stability for the first year than they would if they were also on Steam.
Any sales figures in relation to loss of sales will be inaccurate, hence why I stated my point in relation to this being theoretical. As it stands, and to the best of my knowledge, no sales figures have been published one way or the other. If you have said evidence then please provide a link as I'd be curious to read it.
Whether or not you accept it there is a significant portion of the PC gaming population who will not touch Epic.
Finally, it's understandable that sales would increase as the year went on with Rebel Galaxy given that it was a new IP and it takes time for word of mouth/recommendations to spread.
Stating that "it is far more likely they'll end up with more money and better stability for the first year than they would if they were also on Steam" is simply absurd. By removing any chance of sales on competing platforms to Epic you immediately hamstring your client base for numerous reasons.
It is not Epic you are thinking about. Epic has never ever had any kind of digital store front for games prior to the current EGS. The fact that there is ZERO news or anything that shows up on Google about it is proof enough that one never existed prior to EGS.
World War Z sold over 320k copies on the PC and that was better than expected sales.
https://www.destructoid.com/world-war-z-has-already-shifted-over-a-million-copies-since-launch-551396.phtml
Coffee Stain had the best PC launch than ever
https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-exclusives-borderlands-3-and-metro-exodus-are-now-on-the-humble-store/
That is a good way of showing you have ZERO valid arguments, thus proving my points must be valid and that they stumped you, so you go on the attack instead.
It was the store front which they had tied into their MOBA which Fortnite killed. Fornite brought with it an entire relaunch resulting in their previous attempt which was attached to Paragon tanking. IT IS EPIC I'M THINKING OF. Don't be so bloody audacious to insist on something because you can't find a trace of it with your Google skills,. Just because something doesn't appear on Google doesn't mean that it isn't true; just as in contrast to this just because something appears on Google doesn't make it true.
Again, we're entering into the realms of theory. Just entertain this idea for a second, by switching to a new launcher with reduced exposure the publisher for WWZ would have taken into consideration these elements when drafting sales projections, assuming they're competent. To say something is better than expected is an empty statement unless of course they had zero confidence in their product.
Regarding other titles and their "success" on Epic, I'm sorry but while they may have been successful within the projections allotted by these companies you can clearly see if you do some digging that EGS is suffering major backlash from the community and that these products are suffering sales losses. The simple fact is that it is very unlikely for any company to admit "hey, we screwed up by launching on another platform and didn't sell what we expected".
I stand by my original post and while I appreciate your efforts in providing an alternative perspective I'm not going to chase my tail with circular argumentation.
Canceling the support of an MP game that was practically already dead, is no where near the same thing having a previous store with games on it that you were point it to be. You never stated, till now, that you are talking about one particular game, you were talking about a Store.
Considering there was no up front money given for World War Z, so the assumption is they got guaranteed revenue, why would the developers of WWZ take less than what they would expect if the game was also on Steam, in such a contract? it would make no sense. So no, they ended up getting better than expected sales, better then what they expected if it was on Steam, and considering their past games which didn't sell as much as WWZ did and their past games were on Steam, that supports even more that their game sold better than what they were expecting even if it was on Steam.
There is no indication that any sales loss from the small amount of people is actually a loss. For example, it was determined that in the first week PC sales were 25% of the total sales among all platforms (PC, Xbox, PS4). When a game like Witcher 3 gets 30% on PC, and 70% on consoles after 6 weeks, this very much suggests that at best WWZ maybe have gotten 5% more sales if it was on Steam as well, but that would have also made it so vast majority of their sales would be at 18% less in revenue per game sold.
This comment applies to you as well
https://steamcommunity.com/app/290300/discussions/0/1813171008055545716/?tscn=1557686735#c1651043958643448361
Difference being those stations help those shows exist in the first place. EGS sure as ♥♥♥♥ didn't help phoenix point exist, those ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ are the prime example of how developers that go exclusive only care about the money.
This title was sold directly by Epic Games, whether or not you wish to admit they had a store front. The launcher which was also present (and which transactions could be conducted through) did play host to a limited selection of other games/products. By definition this would fall under the definition of a store.
As a final note on this particular point I can't recall any player figures from the time but I'd be curious to see your source in relation to this claim.
I made no reference to any notion of money being issued up front nor did I make reference to any guaranteed revenue. You seem to switch back and forth between theoretical revenue and actual revenue claims with this point.
In response to their previous games, all these titles were niche titles or F2P titles. The majority of their previous catalogue has had very low market exposure and has frequently suffered from poor feedback from critics.
World War Z is a much more visible brand, largely due to the film interpretation of recent years and the game format itself holds much wider market appeal than games such as "Spintires: Mudrunner" or "Shaq Fu: A Legend Reborn". This cannot be said for the majority of their previous titles.
As far as I'm aware no marketing projections have been published for World War Z which would support this assertion. The simple fact is that Steam has a significantly larger user base than Epic Game Store and Steam also plays host to L4D, arguably the fanbase which WW Z would appeal to most.
You have no evidence to support this claim at all. You're also drawing examples (without evidence/sources) from different platforms in the sense of PC compared to consoles, in the context of this discussion this holds no relevance. You're also comparing an entirely different type of product, you're comparing an RPG to co-op shooter which is considered by many as a spiritual successor to L4D.
I realise that I stated I wouldn't engage with you again in relation to your responses and circular arguments but in this case I felt as though it was worth the reply. The final paragraph of your response teeters dangerously on the precipice of a star man argument.
At this point nothing is being gained from this discussion and I stand by my original statement to the developers.
No physical copies are going to be made. Digital only on all platforms.