Epic vs Steam.

[Levi Ackerman]

we know steam is a better platformish compared to epic, more options.
but which one give more to the gamers?
steam has nothing on epic when it comes to giving content to players, i cant even name of the free games have been given out since epic launch... obviously, won ppl with GOOD free games even if most are limited time things.
lets be honest, what is steam even doing?

[The nameless Gamer]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

700.000 sales in 6-7 weeks in a very popular genre as is a generic and bland zombie-shooter. I am quite confident that the sales would have been the same on EVERY store. They likely expected lower sales because the game is something done to death. L4D and L4D2, Killing Floor... no shortage of that.

Sooo, that means being Epic exclusive didn't hurt their sales then.
by the way, at the time 700k was actually more sales for Saber Interactive than all of their life time sales of all their games on Steam combined. Game ended up being a smashing hit for them.

I don't know what other games they made. And our posts point to the fact that the Epic exclusivity didn't HELP them, which it was supposed to. Or maybe it did, albeit in a weird way. On Steam, they would have been overshadowed by already existing zombie-shooters, because WWZ doesn't bring literally anything new to the table. It's as generic as a game like that gets. So they had to create some buzz to make the game stand out in a different way. It's not Epic specifically that helped them, it's the commotion around it.

[Tito Shivan]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

I doubt that because Epic does not have a Community.

In Epic's research by talking to developers, they found that a store community was seen as a burden, and developers would rather use different channels.

I would love to see the size of that sample.

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

No; Steam does not have an creator/affiliate program at all, and dev/pubs able to get keys to give to creators is not an affiliate program. Having a searchable database of creators is a huge deal for small developers who normally don't have such easy access to finding so many different creators they can send keys too. Sure the developer might know about some of the bigger ones, but the bigger ones may not have time to play their game, so having a database allows the developer to increase their number of creators they can contact, even down to smaller creators, to increase the exposure of their game. Targeting bigger ones and the smaller ones increases their chances of having more creators playing their game therefore getting more exposure.

Do we have any tangible example of this program being actually in use?
Because the only times I hear from it is whenever you mention it.

[Tito Shivan]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

Well here is Cohhcarnage talking about the creator code, urging people to use the code from a certain creator instead of others.

https://twitter.com/CohhCarnage/status/1166661549722935296

Also when ever Cohh plays a game from Epic store he has his creator code available

https://youtu.be/IVyPeq9-7Rk

Thanks. I don't pay much attention to Youtube or Streamers so I was genuinely wondering how much of an impact this feature had.

Though IMHO a single tweet and video from a year ago doesn't seem much. And most of my Google results for 'Creator code' refer to Fortnite content creators.

[Thunder Lips]

Tito Shivan님이 먼저 게시:

The day Epic closes the faucet of free games is going to be loads of fun...

What is wrong with competition, certainly steam need it?

[DiceDsx]

Scuderia님이 먼저 게시:

What is wrong with competition, certainly steam need it?

How do you compete against loss leading?

[The nameless Gamer]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

I don't know what other games they made. And our posts point to the fact that the Epic exclusivity didn't HELP them, which it was supposed to. Or maybe it did, albeit in a weird way. On Steam, they would have been overshadowed by already existing zombie-shooters, because WWZ doesn't bring literally anything new to the table. It's as generic as a game like that gets. So they had to create some buzz to make the game stand out in a different way. It's not Epic specifically that helped them, it's the commotion around it.

If the Epic store ended up selling the same amount as it would have on Steam, then that means due to the better revenue share the developers ended up making more money from the sales then they would have if the game was on Steam.

If the game was on Steam, it would have been $40 instead of the $35. The developers lowered the price by $5 to pass on some of the savings from revenue share to the customer.

So if the game was on Steam, at 700k copies at $40 each, that would get them $20.5 million in revenue after Steam's cut it taken out.

but with 700k sales on Epic, at $35 a copy, with Epic's share that is 21.560 Million. So they were able to make more money through Epic while passing on some of the saving to the customer.

Honestly, I'm surprised people paid 35$ for a mediocre game in a saturated genre.
From my perspective, the exclusivity deals are only harming the market as a whole, and bring nothing good long term. If their revenue share is so generous, why does Epic target games based on the wishlist numbers on Steam? Why do I not see games like Momodora and Minoria by Bombservice sold by them? Why don't they have "Indivisible" or "Bloodstained - Curse of the moon" and "Bloodstained - Ritual of the night" on their store page? Batterystapple (Creators of 20XX, an excellent rogue-like Megaman X-type game)? Epic only "supports" certain success games, which they blatantly poach based on Steam data. That's a pretty dirty business strategy.

Addendum: Also, why would they insist on exclusivity? Why not allow the developer of Darq (and many others) to sell everywhere else, if their offer is so much better?

[DiceDsx]

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

why does Epic target games based on the wishlist numbers on Steam? Why do I not see games like Momodora and Minoria by Bombservice sold by them?

I can tell you the answer will be something like "they have limited space, so they chose high profile games, but they're expanding now".

I remember reading about how Epic would accept only 100 games per year in an interview with Slitherine's marketing director, but I didn't find other sources other than that.

[Ness_and_Sonic]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah, just look how horrible Epic treated him, how dare they treat him with politeness and professionalism.

[/quote]

https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7 [/quote]You're right. They did treat him horribly and showed their true colors. You see, he turned down their deal because he had already gave his word he'd release on Steam on a specified date. Epic wanted him to go back on his word. He told them he wouldn't, but still offered to release on the Epic Game Store ALONG SIDE Steam. They turned that down. This should raise some red flags about Epic's real intentions. If they wanted to compete with Steam, Epic would have allowed that simultaneous release. The fact that they didn't shows they wanted a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y, and when they can't get it, they claim Steam is one. Funny when you think about it as if Steam was the monster that liars at EGS' PR division is trying to convince people Steam is, Metro Exodus wouldn't have removed from Steam's store to be a timed Epic Exclusive.

[󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧the.jester]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

Should be noted that the idea that Epic went based on wish list numbers is a fallacy, since there is no way to get wish list numbers unless you are the developer/publisher of the game itself. And there has been no mention from anyone that Epic is going around and asking dev/pubs what their wish list numbers are.

You've forgotten who the author of steamspy is.

[The nameless Gamer]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

Should be noted that the idea that Epic went based on wish list numbers is a fallacy, since there is no way to get wish list numbers unless you are the developer/publisher of the game itself. And there has been no mention from anyone that Epic is going around and asking dev/pubs what their wish list numbers are.

There are no games that disprove it either. It is common knowledge that the games poached by Epic all were highly wanted among Steam users. The only motive behind such a move can never be to "support" those games (because they'd sell quite well on Steam already), but to cripple Steam's revenue. And the question remains: why do they NOT sell games of less known indie developers? (Among them some I mentioned)

[DiceDsx]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

First of all they didn't claim that Steam is a monopoly. [...]Nobody at EGS PR is trying to show Steam as monsters

Well, Tim Sweeney saying stuff like "Exclusives are the pickax to bring down the wall of monopoly" didn't really help. Even if it wasn't on purpose, he didn't try to disprove the "Steam is a monopoly" line of thought.

[Ness_and_Sonic]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

CAT-800님이 먼저 게시:

You're right. They did treat him horribly and showed their true colors. You see, he turned down their deal because he had already gave his word he'd release on Steam on a specified date. Epic wanted him to go back on his word. He told them he wouldn't, but still offered to release on the Epic Game Store ALONG SIDE Steam. They turned that down. This should raise some red flags about Epic's real intentions. If they wanted to compete with Steam, Epic would have allowed that simultaneous release. The fact that they didn't shows they wanted a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y, and when they can't get it, they claim Steam is one. Funny when you think about it as if Steam was the monster that liars at EGS' PR division is trying to convince people Steam is, Metro Exodus wouldn't have removed from Steam's store to be a timed Epic Exclusive.

First of all they didn't claim that Steam is a monopoly.

Second of all, The developer of DARQ didn't even mention to Epic about any kind of "promise" until his final email to them. So no, they did not ask him to go back on a promise.

But the fact remains, they treated him politely and with professionalism.

If Epic was trying to get a monopoly, they wouldn't get that with less than 1% of new games being exclusive to their store. So it is clear that Epic is not trying to get a monopoly, and the idea that Epic actually thinks they could get a monopoly is worthy, Epic has been in this business for way to long, have been way to successful to be dumb enough to actually think they could become a monopoly.

Nobody at EGS PR is trying to show Steam as monsters, rather they disagree that the 30% revenue share is not justified, something by the way only 6% of developers feel 30% is actually justified, so Epic is creating a serious competitor in the hopes of changing the industry.

I'll hold off on that first part for now. Likely someone else will do some digging and find out they did say it.

It's my understanding he announced a Steam release date before Epic approached him, which is him giving Steam users his word about a release date. And in a way, asking him to release EXCLUSIVELY on the Epic Game Store is asking him to go back on his word as he stated he'd release on STEAM on that date.

Until he declined their offer, but offered to release on EGS along side Steam, then they told him no.

Actually, the exclusivity part is the monopoly part of it as the only way to get it is to use Epic's crappy launched. And it's worse in a few ways as they've used the wishlist to find out which games people are wanting to get on Steam to deny them that opportunity during a set time period.

I'm sure he has, trying to portray them as greedy monsters for the cut. Speaking of which, how many of the other 94% are not sure they don't deserve it either or are in the middle. Your number will get smaller when you cut out everyone in the middle. Also while I'm asking about those people, how many release on consoles? I mean, if they release on consoles at the same time as they do Epic's store despite the three of them actually being worse than Steam. Not only do Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft also take a 30% cut, but they charge for online play despite the developers paying for their games online servers. In other words, every dollar that's going to PlayStation +, Xbox Live Gold, and Nintendo Switch Online is a dollar that could have been going to those hard working developers through the sale of DLC for their games instead.

[Gwarsbane]

Eisberg님이 먼저 게시:

Should be noted that the idea that Epic went based on wish list numbers is a fallacy, since there is no way to get wish list numbers unless you are the developer/publisher of the game itself. And there has been no mention from anyone that Epic is going around and asking dev/pubs what their wish list numbers are.

You think Epic has no way to read steam wishlists or wishlists from any other website that people connect to their epic account?

You would be wrong on that. Because once they know a profile url for a steam account (and they can do that by having people connect their steam accounts to their epic accounts), looking up the wishlist info is easy. How do I know its easy? Because fanatical.com reads wishlists of people that connect them to their wishlist. They can do it with any wishlist that is made public.

So if fanatical.com can do it, any website can do it including Epic.

Once they read the info they can easily determine "x number of people want this game, y number wants that one."

Its not as accurate as having direct access to the numbers, or getting them from the developers/publishers, but its better than nothing.

[Runkel]

Dude님이 먼저 게시:

I see the Epic shill Eisberg is still trying to stir up anti-Steam sentiment. Why not go over to the Epic forums and brag about how great their ♥♥♥♥♥♥ platform is instead... oh wait.

Eisberg is the Ben Shapiro of Epic Shills

[A Chewy Pickle]

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

There are no games that disprove it either. It is common knowledge that the games poached by Epic all were highly wanted among Steam users. The only motive behind such a move can never be to "support" those games (because they'd sell quite well on Steam already), but to cripple Steam's revenue. And the question remains: why do they NOT sell games of less known indie developers? (Among them some I mentioned)

Exactly this. I was about to put something similar to this.

Epic know exactly which games to "poach" from Steam and stamp the exclusivity brand all over it. How they do it is open to debate. As for why. That is pretty much a cert at this point.

As for devs/pubs and their predicted sales figures. Well anyone should know that if you're going to be selling a game only in one place (not on the biggest store) for a year, then you would have to lower you're expectations to account for the fact that Steam is the biggest store and so there will be many people that will ONLY buy on Steam for, as in, they have no other launcher. Or will only buy on Steam because of the endless great features it has and prefer to buy all 3rd party games there. Like myself. So, as many people have pointed out. The total amount of money they would get would be a fair bit lower than either selling everywhere or only on Steam. And because we're apparently being sold the slogan of "more money = better games." You have to think.... Whats really going on here?

The thing with the Darq dev. I liked how they said "I wish there wasn’t a double standard and indie developers were given an equal opportunity to sell their games across multiple storefronts, so the players can enjoy what they seem to want the most: a choice."
With these "deals" as they're called. You have to also think. If they were so good and the best for games. No one in their right mind would say no. After all, "more money = better games" apparently.

As for the actual motives of Epic. Well When you see things like the Darq incident, the way Epic has plastered their name all over the pc games show, the fact they only really target Steam in 30% cut and say little to nothing of consoles or others, throw the deals at highly anticipated pc games. And not to mention the hypocrisy from the leader, when talking about the GoG galaxy announcement. Him saying rather than fragmenting the pc gaming community they unite them.... yeah ok.

Basically. You want more money. Then sell everywhere. You want your game to be talked about then sell everywhere. You want your game to be a total success (assuming the game is good) then sell everywhere. Something wants to compete, then get to the standard that's been set or do something a bit different, like DRM free. Something that DOESN'T "fragment" a community.