Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Valhalla & Mirage was, it took a litlle more than a year for those to come to Steam after release (I'm not counting them forcing Uplay and selling there too)
Not counting Uplay is literally defeating the purpose of the word.
There was no deal to release any Ubisoft games first on Epic. Ubisoft did it because Steam takes 30% of all the revenue for units sold on their platform (nearly a third), while Epic only takes 12%. Basically if you sell a $60 game Steam takes $18 leaving you with $42, while Epic takes about $7.20 leaving you with $52.80.
So if you sell 5,000,000 copies at $60/each you're generating $300,000,000 in revenue. Steam takes $90,000,000 for the simple privilege of being able to sell your product to their user base, leaving you with $210,000,000. Meanwhile Epic takes $36,000,000, leaving you with $264,000,000. So selling those units on Epic lets you keep $54,000,000.
It's the same abusive percentage Google and Apple on mobile, and console manufacturers charge. It's the kind of exorbitant fee typically associated with walled gardens, but on an open platform.
Would YOU want to give away a third of your revenue in a high risk industry where products cost $100-200+ million to make over 5+ years when you could instead part with less than half that? Especially when you're hemorrhaging money, and everyone across the entire "AAA" industry is having issues and downsizing?
But of course... not enough people adopted Epic to make that viable. So you keep it there for a year and you move substantially less product for a year, and time is money. Delaying access to the bulk of potential customers lengthens the time before you see a return, reinvest, and put that money back to work to generate more revenue. It's an opportunity cost, and apparently the number crunchers have decided the extra revenue generated per unit on Epic wasn't worth the opportunity cost of not collecting from the Steam user base earlier.
Also i'm assuming this game is Ubisofts make or break to see if they shut down or not so this game needs to make any income it can.
I don't think Steam is going to save Ubisoft because as evidenced with games like Avatar and Star Wars Outlaws, their games don't seem to be selling well generally across PC and console.