Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックはロックされています 
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Its likely only unsustainable if the games do not sell as expected, if they do, then it doesn't cost Epic anything. basically what this lawyer said:
https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1176217919723847681
With that being said, Epic isn't going to do these exclusives forever anyways.
It's convenient until it's not.
The legalities involved between these is enough reason it'll be hell and varieties of hell, ending up rejected or destroying the industry, then rejected, and we're in rebuilding mode. Just exercises in futility, genuinely showing that "resistance [as a noun] is futile." hahhaa
Plus all of that would be without any actual earnings from doing so. Even something like "isthereanydeal" is unsustainable without advertising.
So were it to happen it'd be an incredible technical feat.... while earning nothing on it's own merit.
---
All this from the guy defending a lack of a shopping cart because of the difficulty.... It doesn't add up.
Foums, who needs them, features customers want, they don't know what they want.
Game store "Just buy our games and keep your pie hole shut."
Works for Epic.
It's almost like Epic is being run by Xi Jinping :p
hope you dont mind this long answer.
gog still has a chance:
as long as they manage to make a few more great games like the witcher 3 and cyberpunk 2077, or popular "minigames" like what they almost accidentaly did with gwent, they could win enough to challenge or even become as big as steam. Valve started the same way: steam was a side project that became they axis only after they had enough resources to improve and make the store more efficient, even if they failed with the steam machines (which imo could still revive if they change their approach to selling them, and allow people to make their own machines with more options). They used to focus in dev stuff, then later they invested more in steam and then in other experiments to expand: some didnt worked very well, others were a bit more succesful. imo the controller is great and very flexible, but poorly promoted.
if gog tried to follow a similar path to steam and valve, they could also make hardware that matched their philosophy about no-drm, designing open source hardware to allow users to experiment and tweak it more than what steam already allows to do with their own controller. People adopting gog hardware from offering cheap and hackable options could create a community that in turn could increase their market for low or lower budget systems than typical consoles (which is what sta¿eam attempted to do, but i think the controller was a bit too expensive for people who didnt want to experiment with something new a go for a "safe bet"). the reason a few people still adopt the steam controller is because its hackable and its actually useful to play non-controller optimized games, once you invest a bit of time researching how to use it (valve has also failed a bit making easy to find documentation and guides, but there are youtubers and users which have filled the void with unofficial guides)
This is extremely unlikely to happen for two reasons:
in the last decade both playstation and xbox consoles became very close to pcs (hardware). This trend hasnt changed, and even nintendo managed to mixed their own philosophy with the trend adopting the tablet format in their latest console, which has managed to have huge sales and be less expensive than the other options. Its currently possible to make a far more flexible machine than a console with outdated hardware, and run with low settings many more or less recent games (2015-2018), but valve has invested time to take advantage from this, or anyone else.
That doesnt mean people wont play games in laptops and pcs, or even in emulators in tablets and phones. It only means pcs wont eat and kill yet the console market, but someday it will happen because how hardware evolves. current trend, even if nosive for gamers, is to download games rather than buying physical copies: if devs and online stores begin to allow users to make physical backups of installation files and people reject categorically the "games as service" and "software as service" model, cheaper and more powerful machines could be sold, because the two most expensive parts relevant for gaming are the storage and gpu (storage hardware is currently beginning to use less power from "green trends", meaning smaller power supplies can be used, which are cheaper, and amd gpus have become more popular in recent years since they are cheaper and as powerful as nvidia cards in many aspects, so nvidia will either will eventually make a cheaper option, or b, find exclusive deals to remain a premium option for those who want a bit more than what amd could offer).
so hardware becoming more powerful and less expensive is reason one. reason two would be, as i commented before, flexibility of builds: consoles, not matter how they evolve, wont eat pc market unless they turn into cheaper pcs that users can easily upgrade to increase the lifespan of hardware, and also be able to keep spending more in software than hardware (which in the end is what devs need, and hardware related businesses).
Not everyone have the money.
Epic main advantage is having the exclusivity which further attract Developer/Publisher, not only 12/88.
Its a gamble for them, while some top game will still likely get money from sales, indie games that make their way towards Epic wont likely have a good sales to make up for Epic Exclusivity.
To put it for example,
A game got 2 million usd for exclusivity with xxxx copies sold.
Meanwhile in reality theres only xxx copies sold and epic only get like 1 million revenue back from split while also losing other 1 million, so i wonder how Epic going to gain the money back from exclusivity in long terms for some less popular games in their store.
In other perspective the Publisher and Developer doesnt have to worry about money lost from the development and they also gain money from the revenue split.
Some games that has Exclusivity will likely have a Win-Loss scenario instead Win Win..
I like the concept of GOG Galaxy 2.0 but there are a few things that make it kinda redundant if you ask me.
1. You still need the client for respective titles to be on and running. You could technically just keep shortcuts on your desktop to get a similar result. It'd be better if Galaxy 2.0 was able to run games without requiring the launch of Steam, EGS, Origin, Bnet, or Uplay. I doubt that'd ever happen though.
2. Shopping, as you said. I seriously don't see any company agreeing to that, not Steam or Epic certainly, as that'd push people through GoG, a competitor to both stores.
Not to mention what GoG Galaxy 2.0 does right now can be achieved with the little "Add a Non-Steam Game To Library" button we have on Steam now. It's just not automatic and has to be done on a game-by-game basis.
I don't think any of the big-name games Epic has made timed exclusives have been a win for them outside of getting a temporary influx of users who want JUST that game and that exclusive alone.
Take Control for instance, I'm not sure about it's sales numbers, but let's just go with 500K for the sake of this argument. Epic paid 9.5 million dollars for exclusivity with Remedy / 505. If Control is 60 USD (I'm not sure, never been on EGS myself to see), then they would have 30,000,000 USD. Take Epic's 12% off that, and you get 3,600,000 USD, which when you take into account the 9.5 spent for exclusivity, means they lost 5,900,000 dollars on the game.
For a game like Borderlands 3, I'm fairly certain the metric is higher and Epic lost even more money in exchange for one-time users.
People here have offered a few examples, but if you dont agree with them, thats ok. that still doesnt mean epic hasnt make mistakes: everyone, every business, makes mistakes. some bigger than others, but no business is perfect, and nothing lacks downsides, so what im asking you, is that in relation to what you think which thinks you would accept or believe are negative about epic store in relation to users, not as a "profit machine" (usually what is good for "profit machines" is bad for consumers. a simple example would be ea, and many of the devs who have exploited the "legal gambling loophole" of the loot boxes, which is a bit similar to the pachinko business model in japan).
Sorry, I did my reply in a Question and Answer format. I gave the question first, and then I answered that question.
It might be abit different if it was 30/70 for them with Exclusivity instead of calling back the 12/88.
Even so, on bigger scheme instead making money, they'll lose much more.
You're here to pimp Epic, not have a discussion.
Meanwhile my answer to the question is about what I feel Epic is doing wrong.
As users, we actually dont need the client, but a "game collection manager" (which could be "agnostic"; lets called it "gcm"); and from the perspective of a software store, what we would need would be a license manager, which could work as a "software keychain" that could work without an official game collection manager to open or share games (a bit like a drm gate since it would centralize control and access to games, but not exactly drm, since these "keys" could be backed up and managed individually, pretty much like what offline password managers do).
It could be something as simple as a background process that could open a small window from the system tray. That way we could still buy and download drm-free games and software from a "game store browser" (could be part of the gcm), install and backup offline, and devs could avoid the cost of drm bs. steam could then split into a "steam browser (+launcher)" and "steam keychain", so that way it could need less resources which would be useful for smaller and cheaper systems.
If the business model to allow good profits with that perspective in mind was designed, to make that option work, companies wouldnt care. The reason many devs are jumping into epic is they are getting big rewards without risking much, even if people have become angry towards them, but not as seriously to impact them in a big way.
The real reason "adding a non-steam game" option was fundamental for steam, was to allow those programs to work with the steam controller, because it could only work through steam. what gog is doing with gog client is an attempt to make a official gcm, so people can easily managed their gog games, and non-gog games. Their focus isnt the store, but the library. Its a good idea, but unless they do something more clever and unique to offer something new, it wont be very attractive for gamers because other actually free, and agnostic gcm exists, and which also work with anything users want (the downside is that many are still not very automatic and friendly for "non-pc users").
Thanks to valve listening to users, and mostly a small community of hackers, that is no longer the case (need to use "add non-steam games" to use the controller): its now possible to use the controller without steam and easily preserve personal configurations. And maybe this will open the possibility of later using steam-vr and other hardware without the steam client.
https://github.com/kozec/sc-controller
That project is great, because its faster and lighter than steam ui for the controller settings, and not only is easier to preserve personal configs with it, but you can easily solve compatibility issues when trying to run steam for windows client in linux, or even running steam for linux games with a different setting without relying in steam ui for the controller.
its relatively new, so it sometimes wont work properly, but it usually works as intended.