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
GoG reported only like 40mil in losses recently.
They are doing much better than Epic on their store.
Everyone knows they're doing bad. To do well the store would need to be profitable, it is very much not that.
The market dictates success or failures, doing well or doing poorly. They're economically doing very poorly as a store as they need to take a large amount of profit from a successful thing, to something that makes no money. In order to attempt attracting customers, they bribe them for the 1-Year exclusive which alienates a fair amount of customers into not buying the game.
That is a sign of failure and everyone else knows it.
There's also a huge difference between a "near monopoly" and actively doing nothing about competition by intentionally allowing the market to develop as it does which is something Newell seems to be about. That makes them highly used, but most certainly nowhere near a monopoly especially with all of the other sites/services existing.
They're an optional service, it attracts indies due to the popularity but never limits them, nor does Valve treat them like something to be conquered; they sit and collect their share of a sale.
Developers do and have utilized other sites & services to sell their games in addition to Steam. Acting like a monopoly would be restricting from using other places or competitors, something Valve is not fond of.
To be fair its fine to operate at a loss when you start up, you just need a plan to change that. For instance if EPIC's goal was to be a lower cost store compared to steam and to leverage their 12% cut vs Steams 20-30% and make their games cheaper that is a potential path that could have worked.
The problem is giving away stuff is the worst possible long term solution you can do. It creates the exact scenario they have fallen victim to. Ask anyone about what the EPIC stores best feature is and the overwhelming majority will say their free games.
Even the $5 off coupons are devestating. When they sell a $50 game they only make $6, so that $5 coupon basically wipes out all their profit, in fact they lose money selling a game thats $40 or less with a coupon...
The crux of EPIC's issue is they do nothing better then anyone else, and offer nothing that other sites don't do better. The only thing they have going for them is the very thing that makes it impossible to generate a profit.
Most Epic exclusives are time-based. So, they come to Steam anyway.
If the wealthiest gamers have to go to Epic to be one of the first to play a game? This impacts me in no way whatsoever.
What indie game?
What game? Why be vague and coy?
Name a feature that has been introduced to Netflix. Since the start of the Epic game store/launcher thingy.
Netflix hasn't changed in years. The last big change they made was removing user reviews. Which didn't add to the service. It was a removable of a feature.
Gee... I don't know. Maybe that a monopoly causes everything else to be unable to enter the space. Like, y'know, a MONOPOLY tends to do?
It's just dumb to rely on a pile of money for years & years for essentially a special interest project with questionable practices. If they want to succeed, they'd have better luck with a less clunky/slow app, and being more competitive rather than trying the exclusive/free game stuff which draws in nearly no paying customers. Something they said they'd do but never really stuck to realistically. Bribery only works for so long before they can't pay for it anymore, or they finally do something the right way to create success.
When all you do is try to give free stuff, or pay off people to only work with you for a limited time as a new entity, you're practically dooming your project especially when it should be focused on to make it profitable by itself, something they're miserably failing at.
I have a fairly expensive purchasing-price amount of things on epic with $0 spent, like a lot of accounts, so definitely an unwise move.
Something a lot of people overlook, which is why Valve went from tokens & coupons to point shop.
Their client takes a long time to load compared to everything else as well, and all my clients load instantly so that should say something.
I did not constantly give away free stuff to consumers or bribe other companies to use my service for a while. I even have a competitive policy.
Explained below
The issue with that logic is you see so many failed businesses where people keep spending, spending, spending with no money coming in for that thing, and they think it's completely fine and successful or the issue is others tastes but they keep taking from their own pockets hoping someday the flaming pile becomes something else.
If you run a restaurant, you don't buy all the things you expect to buy as example to pay off, and then give expensive meals away no strings attached every week or two one per unique person until the next free meal and hope someone buys something off of your menu to make you more than what you give away.
You'd need to recoup the losses of;
-Giving away free meals by bribing other parties to give you the meals to give away.
-Coupons.
-All the equipment.
-Staff
-Utilities
-Rent/Leave/Upkeep
Now, doing so by adding immense expenses that are logically not needed makes recovering much more difficult, unless you dip your hands into a giant pile of money and shovel it to an unsuccessful project.
You don't keep shoveling money from one project to another, you have a set amount to get what you need, then you make it all pay itself off and become profitable. Constantly needing to do so, really goes to show it's a strong failure and is on life support.
If they cutoff the unending money flow by sticking to original estimates/amounts, and made it rely on itself while paying out all parties owed money, how long do you think they would remain open?
It could've easily become successful just by competing regularly. Financially, it's a complete failure of an experiment. You do not constantly add more & more burden, you get what you need and go full ahead instead of harming your own business. The primary subject is that it cannot sustain itself and needs more & more over time.
The point is always for a project to sustain itself. The company is already established and has fortnite as its main income, I believe some royalties as well. They have success in that, due to pure popularity/trends, which might not last like a bunch tend to burn out.
Now, given they're established as a company, but the store is a project/experiment, you set an amount over years that you'll use on it. You do not add more & more, you make it profitable by bringing in customers, developers etc without bribing them or giving consumers free stuff. Account numbers does not equate to profit or sustainability when you're known to "free game, grab game, don't come back til another free game".
There's the company. It does well due to fortnite primarily.
Then there's the project. The project is a failure and if it doesn't succeed in its goal, it's still a failure. Much like a failing restaurant, "know when to cut your losses" and not dip into funds from elsewhere repeatedly. Their goal is to make the project successful, and that project is not a business; it (the project) is owned by the business. By taking the whole income and using it on something failing to generate profits or reach apparent estimates, it is most definitely not succeeding.
Valheim, although even if it only matched 10% of EPIC's sales thats still crazy, especially when Borderlands 3 was in the mix.
Gave you the name
All the content, netflix exclusive shows, etc. Netflix isn't a platform where features matter, its content.
Except its not a monopoly, nothing at all stops anyone from entering the space, and again EPIC had big content and many big name games. No one was interested in buying them from EPIC and they still aren't spending money on EPIC.
EPIC's best games were outsold by indie games on Steam. I mean for instance V Rising, another single Indie game has sold $50 million worth of copies in 4 months, EPIC managed 300 Million across their entire catalog in a year...
Not really, revenue is meaningless, profit is what matters. YOu could have a trillion dollars in revenue and it means nothing if your spending more then a trillion to earn that revenue. GoG might have less revenue, but they aren't losing money every year to get that revenue generating a profit.
I mean do you work a job where you lose money by working? Or do you make a profit from your work?
The fact is spending on EPIC averages at best around $4 a user PER YEAR, that isn't sustainable. Large numbers of users are useless if those users aren't actually being converted to paying customers. Having large numbers of users is useless unless you can convince those users to actually SPEND MONEY, otherwise the users actually hurt you by taking resources and generating nothing in return.
Once EPIC cuts the free games their store doesn't have anything to encourage the users to spend their money, or even stick around.
Also your info is wrong, EPIC's free game giveaway was supposed to end back in 2019, they had to extend it until 2024 because without it they realized they had nothing to offer.
https://www.kitguru.net/desktop-pc/mustafa-mahmoud/epic-is-offering-1-free-game-every-day-until-the-end-of-2019/
and
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/epic-games-store-weekly-free-games-in-2020
Hence why it's a failure and still is as a project. Competent businesses try to succeed by creating success, not digging deeper and deeper holes by burning more money.
Most of them likely wont stick around, given the number of accounts solely existing to get free games.
Having nothing to offer is an example of something clearly not doing well. Extending a gimmick that is not working, makes the matter significantly worse over time.
Numbers don't lie. Market does get to say a failure is a failure. The question is if they can ever dig the project itself out of the hole to make profit by itself, which currently at gimmick rate, is not possible.
They are getting USERS who are coming for free games, those users aren't turning into customers though. Hence why their free game program which was supposed to end in 2019 was extended for at LEAST another 4 years because the moment they stop offering them, their users go bye.
Again straight from their own numbers 300 million in sales and 194 million customers = on average $1.54 spent per user, a non sustainable number. If they aren't buying games NOW, why would they buy games when they stop giving away free games?
That's the question EPIC is still trying to answer.
If any of what you said were true about bringing in paying customers, they would be making a lot more. Oh, and downloading a free game doesn't make someone a paying customer.
It isn't near a 1 to 1 transition.
108 million customers, 251 million in 3rd party sales. That averages $2.32 per user. Even if you factor in 680 million for titles like Fortnite (which they were getting before they even had EPIC store) its $6.29 per customer. The average spend has actually DECREASED from 2019 which is a VERY bad sign.
Also keep in mind the ONLY reason they even got that much in sales was because of Borderlands 3. Again some basic math.
$251 million in 3rd party sales means they only kept $30 million. They paid 4x that JUST for borderlands 3. A single game which accounted for more then 1/3 of their entire sales for the year.
That is their intention, but its not whats happening. Hence why they are being forced to continue giving away free games for years after they intended to stop.
Again very basic numbers straight form EPIC.