Maneater 1 year Epic Exclusivity

[CruiseCTRL]

I was wondering if any Steam devs could comment on Steam exclusivity via the ToS. They are planning to release 1 year out from Steam...

See Tweet: https://twitter.com/maneatergame/status/1256420669975408641

Thought this broke Steamworks ToS as written below?

“Company shall submit the Applications to Steam for release no later than the first commercial release of each Application or Localized Version, or, if already commercially released as of the Effective Date, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.

“Thereafter, Company shall submit to Steam any Localized Versions and Application Updates (in beta and final form) when available, but in no event later than they are provided to any other third party for commercial release. Company shall provide these copies in object code form, in whatever format Valve reasonably requests.”

[Nx Machina]

Escrito originalmente por Halo:

Here - have one of the highest selling games in gaming history for free, you don't even have to play it, just press get game and you'll hav eit to try if you ever want to.

Based on a very simple premise that been free, AAA does not equate to good, nor required, needed or wanted.

If you do not want to buy a game on release or later nor have desire to play it at all then adding it to your Epic account is pointless when it will never be downloaded even if it is free.

I could download free 2 play games like Hearthstone, Apex Legends, Warzone etc but I would rather watch paint dry or a kettle boil.

[Crazy Tiger]

Escrito originalmente por Halo:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

lol, I installed 2 games and the largest of the two was 200MB.

Good Lord, they will defend anything.

It was based on a random algorithm that chose from your game library, friends recommend chose 2 gig, 6 gig and 22 gig.

Go on, make something up to make it out that it was me and not Steam.

Go on, make something up that I could have chosen a 30kb game and chose to download gigs.

These forums are like a Trump rally.

What exactly am I defending, if I may ask? I merely found it funny I only had to install two small games.

You are trying to read into things when nothing is there.

[Pnume]

I would very much like to know what steam is doing about it as well but discussing it in the forum would be a very bad legal/litigation strategy and they won't ever do it.

If I was them, the very least I would do would be to ban that dev from steam permanently and send a message but I doubt they will do such a thing. Valve has always been very meek in these matters.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

I would very much like to know what steam is doing about it as well but discussing it in the forum would be a very bad legal/litigation strategy and they won't ever do it.

If I was them, the very least I would do would be to ban that dev from steam permanently and send a message but I doubt they will do such a thing. Valve has always been very meek in these matters.

That would push developers away from Steam, even those not "banned". Then those games would never come to Steam at all.

In my opinion, they should be restricted from having a Steam store page and forums, until X time before the exclusive period ends (eg: 30 days). That way they can't use Steam to advertise the game or use the Steam forums (since Epic doesn't have their own for said games).

[Ganger]

Escrito originalmente por Spawn of Totoro:

That would push developers away from Steam, even those not "banned". Then those games would never come to Steam at all.

In my opinion, they should be restricted from having a Steam store page and forums, until X time before the exclusive period ends. That way they can't use Steam to advertise the game or use the Steam forums (since Epic doesn't have their own for said games).

Spawn of Totoro, what do you think valve should so to get new AAA+ titles back on steam first and foremost ?

I know many developers have stated the 12% vs 30% share as one of the leading factors in their choice to choose epic over steam first. I know many here would argue that steam users will never use epic games store but clearly that's not true, so fan loyalty isn't even a thing.

[TITOMOSQUITO187]

Doesn't matter what any of that says even if it did say anything like you suggested. Valve makes separate deals with all the big game companies. Any of those companies that want an exclusive probably get a better deal regardless. You know damn well that Bethesda isn't paying nowhere near 30%.

[Start_Running]

Escrito originalmente por TITOMOSQUITO187:

Doesn't matter what any of that says even if it did say anything like you suggested. Valve makes separate deals with all the big game companies. Any of those companies that want an exclusive probably get a better deal regardless. You know damn well that Bethesda isn't paying nowhere near 30%.

I believe it drop to 15% once you clear a certain number of sales

Escrito originalmente por Ganger:

Escrito originalmente por Spawn of Totoro:

That would push developers away from Steam, even those not "banned". Then those games would never come to Steam at all.

In my opinion, they should be restricted from having a Steam store page and forums, until X time before the exclusive period ends. That way they can't use Steam to advertise the game or use the Steam forums (since Epic doesn't have their own for said games).

Spawn of Totoro, what do you think valve should so to get new AAA+ titles back on steam first and foremost ?

I know many developers have stated the 12% vs 30% share as one of the leading factors in their choice to choose epic over steam first. I know many here would argue that steam users will never use epic games store but clearly that's not true, so fan loyalty isn't even a thing.

And you think its just the 12% and not also the signing bonus and guaranteed revenue agreements?

[indio68]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por Darren:

Control was the only one of those that was interesting to me. But I've got a PS4 so not really an obstacle avoiding the Epic store and still playing it.

This is one of the many reason why I play on as many platforms as I can. As a general rule, if a console or computer ever gets about half a dozen exclusives I want, I tend to buy them.

The beauty of this sort of situation is that you ain't putting all your eggs in one basket, so if ♥♥♥♥ like this with the Epic store goes down, I don't have to deal with them.

Having options is always great.

this is awfull....nothing gooood force gamers to buy multiple hardare just to play games they want..its becuz there is ppl like you (that are rich enough to buy every console on earth )that they do this ♥♥♥♥♥♥ things...

[Pnume]

Escrito originalmente por Spawn of Totoro:

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

I would very much like to know what steam is doing about it as well but discussing it in the forum would be a very bad legal/litigation strategy and they won't ever do it.

If I was them, the very least I would do would be to ban that dev from steam permanently and send a message but I doubt they will do such a thing. Valve has always been very meek in these matters.

That would push developers away from Steam, even those not "banned". Then those games would never come to Steam at all.

In my opinion, they should be restricted from having a Steam store page and forums, until X time before the exclusive period ends (eg: 30 days). That way they can't use Steam to advertise the game or use the Steam forums (since Epic doesn't have their own for said games).

IMO It would make most of them come back crying with their tail between their legs and begging for forgiveness which would put Steam in a very strong negociation position with these devs.

Sure devs like Gearbox can sell pretty much where they want. They are strongly established and can market their game.

For smaller devs, it's a completly different story. The rational for them is that they can get a positive net result. They lose sales for 1 year but Epic compensate for that and then they can go back to steam and get the rest of the money. Take that last leg away and it's going to hurt a lot. Not only they are going to lose money overall but they will lose that opportunity to get established which in the long run is the worst thing.

Yeah, Steam would lose cash in the short term but these devs would lose a lot more and maybe other devs will think twice about doing it.

It might seem harsh but devs like this one, have use Steam to market their game and no sell it on another plateform.

Steam won't do that though. They are not that aggressive. They are not agressive at all actually. I mean they even made Half Life Alix works on Occulus when Facebook is super agressive with exclusives.

[CruiseCTRL]

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Escrito originalmente por CruiseCTRL:

Thought this broke Steamworks ToS as written below?

What does it break, if I may ask?

Keep in mind that "Effective Date" doesn't mean what you think it means, eh.

That's really what I wanted clarification on.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

IMO It would make most of them come back crying with their tail between their legs and begging for forgiveness which would put Steam in a very strong negociation position with these devs.

Sure devs like Gearbox can sell pretty much where they want. They are strongly established and can market their game.

For smaller devs, it's a completly different story. The rational for them is that they can get a positive net result. They lose sales for 1 year but Epic compensate for that and then they can go back to steam and get the rest of the money. Take that last leg away and it's going to hurt a lot. Not only they are going to lose money overall but they will lose that opportunity to get established which in the long run is the worst thing.

Yeah, Steam would lose cash in the short term but these devs would lose a lot more and maybe other devs will think twice about doing it.

It might seem harsh but devs like this one, have use Steam to market their game and no sell it on another plateform.

Steam won't do that though. They are not that aggressive. They are not agressive at all actually. I mean they even made Half Life Alix works on Occulus when Facebook is super agressive with exclusives.

I disagree. You seem to think that Steam is bigger and stronger then it actually is. There are many places that AAA games and even indie games can go.

Valve has always put a value on openness of their platform. They want developers to have a choice and that has shown for many of it's policies and features on Steam. (Dark Souls 3 revoking family sharing, for example). They have also always balanced Steam's needs with that of the developer and users.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Escrito originalmente por Halo:

And yet your profile comments relate to free titles ON STEAM that no one has ever heard of and likely wouldn't want polluting their library.

Going to leave you to it as I can only surmise you live under a bridge, have warty green skin and carry a club.

And, funnily enough, seems you're a Steam moderator. Not that there would likely be a bias at all.

Like I said, these forums are like a Trump rally.

Jesus christ imagine being that guy trying to argue someone's opinion on why they will or will not purchase things from a different outlet and add on top trying to throw politics into it. It's like an infestation of twitter children.

[Pnume]

Escrito originalmente por Spawn of Totoro:

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

IMO It would make most of them come back crying with their tail between their legs and begging for forgiveness which would put Steam in a very strong negociation position with these devs.

Sure devs like Gearbox can sell pretty much where they want. They are strongly established and can market their game.

For smaller devs, it's a completly different story. The rational for them is that they can get a positive net result. They lose sales for 1 year but Epic compensate for that and then they can go back to steam and get the rest of the money. Take that last leg away and it's going to hurt a lot. Not only they are going to lose money overall but they will lose that opportunity to get established which in the long run is the worst thing.

Yeah, Steam would lose cash in the short term but these devs would lose a lot more and maybe other devs will think twice about doing it.

It might seem harsh but devs like this one, have use Steam to market their game and no sell it on another plateform.

Steam won't do that though. They are not that aggressive. They are not agressive at all actually. I mean they even made Half Life Alix works on Occulus when Facebook is super agressive with exclusives.

I disagree. You seem to think that Steam is bigger and stronger then it actually is. There are many places that AAA games and even indie games can go.

Valve has always put a value on openness of their platform. They want developers to have a choice and that has shown for many of it's policies and features on Steam. (Dark Souls 3 revoking family sharing, for example). They have also always balanced Steam's needs with that of the developer and users.

Their market share was estimated to be around 75% (maybe not that much now with Epic being aggressive). That's huge, especially considering that most of the remaining 25% are probably plateforms selling mostly in-house games like EA or Blizzard. For Small devs the options are limited. Pretty much everybody is on Steam. You go on GoG for exemple and you tap a market significantly smaller. Steam is being accused of being almost a monopoly for a reason.

Just the Steam Store page must be seen every day by a huge chunk of Steam players. I doubt it is the case for epic. People go there for freee stuffs or for a specific game they can't by elsewhere. Not very usefull for marketing. An indie going there is invisible.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

Their market share was estimated to be around 75% (maybe not that much now with Epic being agressive). That's huge, especially considering that most of the remaining 25% are probably plateforms selling mostly in-house games like EA or Blizzard. For Small devs the options are limited. Pretty much everybody is on Steam. You go on GoG for exemple and you tap a market significantly lower. Steam is being accused of being almost a monopoly for a reason.

Despite the market share, many developer complain about visibility, among other things, on Steam. If your game is not seen, then it is harder to sell and make a living from it. Sometimes those other market bring in more money to the developer, as their games are seen more.

There is a lot more to it then market share. The accusations of Steam being a "monopoly" are exaggerated, imho. It is more of it being perceived by users as a monopoly, then it is an actual monopoly.

Escrito originalmente por Pnume:

Just the Steam Store page must be seen every day by a huge chunk of Steam players. I doubt it is the case for epic. People go there for freee stuffs or for a specific game they can't by elsewhere. Not very usefull for marketing.

The store, yes, but not specific games and when you are a developer, you need your game to be seen.

Honestly, if Epic had come out with real exclusives (instead of scalping them) and a full fledge store, Valve would have had a fight, but Epic was lazy about it and decided to throw money at the issue, in all the wrong places. With their CEO saying that it is the developer who will decide, not the users, he lowered his the chances of success a great deal. Both are required.

[Zaphre]

Nobody


cares