安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Because their CEO didn't have faith in PC as a platform. The company abandoned all their PC IPs and went over to consoles because it seemed like a reasonable business move to make. And now when he saw how big Steam grew and that there's still space under the Sun beside it for GOG, itch and other stores, he wants a slice of the pie too. Forget a slice, he wants the whole pie.
I would then be rich as well as have a load of free games.
Epic has chosen to get in the business by disrupting ('Exclusive' titles, often taken from Steam or Kickstarter) and picking up fights (Let's not forget they're right now in the middle of a gigantic lawsuit not just with Apple but also Google)
Citation needed on that claim of relieving stress. After all that 'stress' only applies to copies sold through the Epic Store and most developers didn't left selling their games on Steam at the end of the day.
30% store-share has been a standard for ages. A standard nobody cared about until Epic decided to make a fuss of it (Despite being far from being the first ones offering a share below 30%... Other storefronts offer developers smaller shares too)
And one must not forget that share is not just because, but it offers benefits and compensations: In the case of Steam it offers delivering your game and host servers through the Steam infrastructure instead of building your own. Not having to deal with payment processors (VISA, Paypal) or currencies at a global scale (Thing that Epic still does not fully offer with their 12% share) Visibility and availability to a big potential customer population (+20 Million daily users) A strong set of community features with a big population of gamers...
That's an extremely naive viewpoint on how things work in the real world. Nothing is ever free.
First: In the case of Epic's giveaways they're compensating the developers for those free copies. The devs still get paid for those free copies.
It's a move with a clear target. Epic and the developers aren't giving their games for free out of pure love. Epic pays the devs for those copies with the intent of having people build an Epic library to raise the feel of investment in the service in order to entice people to make actual purchases in their store.
GOG did the same in their beginning and so did Origin or Uplay (Although Epic has been so far the most agressive use of that tactic)... It's not goodwill. it's business.
It's understandable people will prefer their entertainment to be in the service of choice. If a movie studio decided they wouldn't release their next movie in Bluray or DVD and have it only avaiable through streaming it'd also make some people upset.
They haven't given anything for free.
The problem is not the launcher (although too many launchers are still an issue)
We don't want so many launchers in our systems. Hiding in taskbar, taking system resources, popping up ads, and worse - to have a concern about privacy data, so on. Steam had won the race by appearing first. We see other launchers as copycats, failures and ultimately a burden.
Nothing of that is an issue in Epic as they lack each and everyone of those functions. Maybe it's having these little things (forums, inventory, workshop, trading, achievements, marketplace, social features) tied to your games what makes a lot of people prefer Steam over Epic.
You can't feedback Epic because they chose no to have feedback channels. They made an actual point not having forums in their service as an advantage.
Righ now developers would only lose a storefront. There's still lots more places where they can still sell their games.
And who guarantees Epic wouldn't raise their share back to 30% (or 50%) if they became a big enough service as to force devs to accept it or go bust?
They ditched the PC Gaming side of business long time ago.
It doesn't matter what share they pay to the storefront, what matters to me is what I pay for a game. And so far the lesser share they have to pay Epic hasn't resulted in actually cheaper games. So it doesn't give me a reason to care about that.
Why, don't you want to support developers? You're bad!/s
Seriously though, people think "More money to devs = Better games/Bigger discounts" when they say "Do you want devs to get less money?".
I'll just be waiting here, until you get a response from your elephant that ran off, and busted out on me.
It's logic also based on ignorance of what Valve acttualy provides developers. Processing Credit card payments alon can run anywhere beween 5% - 10% of the ttransaction, sometimes in addition to a priodica flat rate. Then there's providing the store page, the forums, the distribution, and various tools... yeah.there's a lot of conveniences Steam, and many other stores provide.
Many feature sthe EGS doesn't. The EGS which has been operating at a loss BTW.
Oh...what does EGS provide thatt Stteam doesn't?
[quuote]yes, they are spending a ton of money on marketing/advertising right now while they grow so using their other products/services to help pay for that stuff,[/quotte]
And tha's kind of a probllem. That basicaly makes the store a money sink.
Mmm-Hmmm SSo sayeth yor lord sweeney.
Bank transfers not sure on this as there quite a bit of them, but can say lowest 2%, and goes upwards, basically like credit card, so depending on type of business, can get X%.
Now they can either past the fees onto the users, or eat the fees themselves, those are just the options depending on the service used.
Selling your own gift cards cost money, 1) Cost to make, 2) Cost to ship, 3) Cost to pay cut to store that host their products. The draw back is supply too much stock to areas that sells the least, or not selling at all, which you repeat Step 2), and 3) for relocating excess amount, or repeat steps 1), 2), and 3). This seems to be not cheapest option, but it's the best option for those that looking to gift to others, or people that does not wish to use, or have credit card, or access to a bank transfer as a choice for the service to buy from.
My guess it would be Unreal Engine, Epic Online Services and the companies/services they brought like Kamu , RAD Games Tools & Quixel.
Even though Valve has similar features such has Source engine and their own online services they are not widely used. Valve could have brought this companies but if they did i'm pretty they would be called "monopoly". Strange no one bats a single eye when Epic Games does it. umm
You can also read this:-
https://www.pcgamer.com/after-2-years-the-epic-games-store-is-still-a-golden-ticket-for-devs-and-irresistible-bait-for-gamers/
"Great support, direct contact with a human being, simple staging, great backend tools, one-on-one support", says Whitethorn CEO Matthew White. "But on Steam, every time we launch a game, we spend five-six hours trying to get streaming to the page working, updating the store is a nightmare, build uploading has to be done by a member of our engineering team, and it's nearly impossible to get support to respond to your requests. Luckily, after four years in business and through the introduction of a mutual friend, we now have a reliable Valve contact, though this process was extremely difficult."
I don't know why Valve can't expand. They have been in a single location since their existence and also their flat structure is working against them.
Sure Valve done many amazing and still doing amazing things. I hope they can weather the storms.
Why Valve can't expand?
Well, there's the thing. This all very much assumes that what WE see as avenues of expansion might simply not be worth it to them.
{ersonally I'm with you that they should go back to doing games themselves and more bolster up what they already have, and see if expansion comes organically.
But there's nothing worse than being FORCED into expansion as that doesn't end well either.
When you're talking about the big elephant in the room here - the free games, when that happens, as I stated before, is when you get an arms race that ends up hurting developers/suppliers.
This is well documented from supermarkets and other places.
So yes, but with caveats I guess.
And some may say that poor developers and publishers need the extra money they get from Epic to make better games. But actually they get really greedy, like for example Rebellion who returned to steam with Zombie Army 4 and it's ridiculously priced season passes. They've already got a lot of money for their 1 year exclusivity deal so why do they have to milk their customers on top of that?
The argument about devs needing money is a complete moot point. I've never understood why anyone would make that (especially Epic themselves) because it's such obvious ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
If a dev is running things so down to the wire that the extra percentage they'll get from Epic sales means the difference between survival and not, then that's all kinds of wrong and they shouldn't be in business.
There's also another flaw with that argument too - and that is that it's all digital distribution. No "copies". If it were physical, different kettle of fish.
But the fact is that the extra percentages per sale you may get to keep on Epic simply might not match up to the total sales on Steam.
If you get say for argument's sake, 70% of your take on Steam, and 90% on Epic, then sure on a 1:1 basis, you get more with Epic.
But if you get more sales on Steam then that extra percentage doesn't mean much.
Theoretically, yes.
But it isn't that good when developers and publishers get spoiled with too much money. That's why indie game devs are known for making better and more innovative games then tripple A game devs. Because game devs with less budget have more ambition to make better games.