Stand with Tim 12%! Epic Sweeney 2024! 30% Cripples Innovation

[Rob⛧Slayer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czQh1vj1jF8

When talking to ChatGPT gets interesting...

Valve's influence on the gaming industry extends beyond its innovative monetization strategies to include its controversial 30% revenue cut from game sales on its platform, Steam. Initially, when Steam launched, this cut was arguably justified by the costs associated with maintaining the platform and providing services like server hosting, updates, and customer support. However, critics argue that in today's market, Valve's costs have decreased significantly due to technological advancements and economies of scale, making the 30% cut seem excessive and unjustified.

Furthermore, Valve's dominance in the digital distribution market, fueled by its loyal fanbase and the popularity of its titles like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2, has enabled it to leverage its position to push potential competitors out of the market. By exploiting its fandom's mythology and loyalty, Valve has effectively discouraged developers and publishers from exploring alternative distribution platforms, thereby reinforcing its monopoly-like status in the PC gaming market.

This consolidation of power has led to concerns about Valve's ability to dictate terms to developers and publishers, potentially stifling competition and innovation in the industry. Critics argue that Valve's influence over game sales, coupled with its control over Steam's algorithms and storefront visibility, can result in unfair advantages for certain titles while marginalizing others.

In essence, while Valve's contributions to gaming monetization and distribution have been significant, there are valid criticisms regarding its revenue-sharing model and the impact of its dominance on market competition. As the gaming industry continues to evolve, it's essential for stakeholders to address these concerns and strive for a more equitable and diverse ecosystem that prioritizes the interests of both developers and players.

Introduction of Microtransactions: Valve was at the forefront of popularizing microtransactions in video games with the introduction of the "Mann Co. Store" in Team Fortress 2 in 2010. This move allowed players to purchase in-game items, cosmetics, and other virtual goods using real money. The success of this model demonstrated the potential profitability of microtransactions and paved the way for their widespread adoption by other developers and publishers. However, the focus on maximizing revenue through microtransactions may have sometimes come at the expense of prioritizing player experience and game design innovation.

Valve's approach to monetization, particularly through its own game titles like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2, has indeed had a significant impact on industry standards. Here's a deeper dive into how Valve's practices have influenced the gaming industry:

Valve's Platform as a Testing Ground: As both a developer and a platform holder, Valve had a unique position to experiment with various monetization models. By observing the success of microtransactions in its own games, Valve provided a blueprint for other developers to follow. This success demonstrated that well-implemented microtransactions could generate significant revenue without compromising the core gameplay experience, leading to their adoption by many other games across the industry. However, the dominance of Valve's platform may have limited competition and innovation in monetization practices, as developers may have been incentivized to mimic successful models rather than explore new approaches.

Community Marketplaces and Trading: Valve further expanded the possibilities for monetization with the introduction of community marketplaces and trading systems within games like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2. These systems allowed players to buy, sell, and trade in-game items with each other, creating new revenue streams for both Valve and players. This innovative approach to player-driven economies influenced other games to implement similar systems, further normalizing the concept of virtual item trading within the gaming industry. However, the proliferation of trading and marketplace systems has also led to concerns about gambling-like behavior and the exploitation of vulnerable players, particularly minors.

Influence on AAA Titles: Valve's success with microtransactions and other forms of monetization in its games influenced the development strategies of AAA titles from other publishers. Many big-budget releases began incorporating similar monetization systems, such as loot boxes, season passes, and cosmetic item sales, as a way to generate additional revenue beyond the initial purchase price. Valve's success demonstrated that these monetization strategies could be lucrative even for high-profile releases, leading to their widespread adoption across the industry. However, this trend may have contributed to a focus on short-term profit maximization rather than long-term player satisfaction and creative innovation.

Normalization of Monetization Practices: Perhaps most significantly, Valve's adoption of microtransactions and other forms of monetization helped normalize these practices within the gaming industry. What was once seen as controversial or exploitative has become widely accepted as standard practice. However, this normalization has also sparked debates about the ethics and impact of monetization on game design and player experience, with concerns raised about potential exploitation and the creation of pay-to-win mechanics. As a result, developers, publishers, and platforms must navigate a delicate balance between profitability and maintaining player trust and satisfaction.

In summary, while Valve's innovative approach to monetization has undoubtedly reshaped the gaming landscape, there are concerns that the pursuit of profit may have sometimes overshadowed considerations for player experience, creativity, and ethical integrity. Moving forward, it's essential for all stakeholders in the gaming industry to prioritize the creation of engaging and immersive experiences while ensuring transparency, fairness, and respect for players' rights and well-being.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

I love these gymnastics.

I know you do, which is why you often use them.

So, please explain, how Valve would not have been able to take money from NFT sales? I would love to hear this sudden change in tone.

Because NFTs sales happen on market places that don't use Valve's payment system, the market places are separated services from the game. Can't make money from something that doesn't happen in the game itself, but some other services outside using payment methods that isn't Valve's.

They could literally have required them to be done through Steam.

It's like it wasn't about losing sales in their store(considering they literally allow devs to sell items) but more about seeing how scam heavy and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ NFTs are.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Tencent is not throwing money into a black hole. They're not the ones paying for the free games, these games are paid by Fortnite players.

Still, the Epic Store itself is a liability, something LOSING money. Something that hasn't stopped losing money for six years and doesn't seem like it'll become profitable in another 6 years. So WHY would Tencent keep funding it? Why waste money made with Fortnite onto the EGS when they could invest it into something that makes money?

Yep, Tencent has more Stock then Tim Sweeny and has more power then he does when it comes to making decisions at EGS....

[Pierce Dalton]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Tencent is not throwing money into a black hole. They're not the ones paying for the free games, these games are paid by Fortnite players.

Still, the Epic Store itself is a liability, something LOSING money. Something that hasn't stopped losing money for six years and doesn't seem like it'll become profitable in another 6 years. So WHY would Tencent keep funding it? Why waste money made with Fortnite onto the EGS when they could invest it into something that makes money?

Tencent is not worried in the slightest about that (if people are buying games or not). The whole reason why they decided to buy a stake was Fortnite.

[WolfEisberg]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Tencent isn't putting money into Epic. Tencent has not invested any money into Epic since their $350 million investment 12 years ago. Epic got investment from other companies though, most recent being Disney for $1.5 Billion, before that was like $2 billion from combined Sony and Lego.

And you are dodging questions you can't answer as ever. So I'll ask again. Do I have any kind of assurance regarding the licenses purchased at Epic? Steam's assurance is the stability and profitability of the store. GOG's assurance are the offline installers. WHAT is EGS's assurance?

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

And you are dodging questions you can't answer as ever. So I'll ask again. Do I have any kind of assurance regarding the licenses purchased at Epic? Steam's assurance is the stability and profitability of the store. GOG's assurance are the offline installers. WHAT is EGS's assurance?

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

You did not.

[The nameless Gamer]

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

And you are dodging questions you can't answer as ever. So I'll ask again. Do I have any kind of assurance regarding the licenses purchased at Epic? Steam's assurance is the stability and profitability of the store. GOG's assurance are the offline installers. WHAT is EGS's assurance?

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

You didn't answer, you just said it WILL become profitable. What backs your statement up? It isn't happening. EGS is losing money. This is the present. Forgive me, but I am NOT faithful. I don't rely on the "Trust me, bro" source. External funding can be cut on a moment's notice. Those third-party companies can pull the plug. The EGS can NOT stand on its own and thus doesn't inspire confidence.

[Brian9824]

Its funny seeing the circular logic.

EPIC - We've lost over a billion dollars so far and show no signs of slowing the losses, but its ok, its all part of our plan to grow our userbase.
PEOPLE - Ok, but once your userbase is grown how do you plan to KEEP the users without bribing them with free games and coupon's which you've said is not sustainable
EPIC - This video will explain everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

[Pierce Dalton]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Tencent isn't putting money into Epic. Tencent has not invested any money into Epic since their $350 million investment 12 years ago. Epic got investment from other companies though, most recent being Disney for $1.5 Billion, before that was like $2 billion from combined Sony and Lego.

And you are dodging questions you can't answer as ever. So I'll ask again. Do I have any kind of assurance regarding the licenses purchased at Epic? Steam's assurance is the stability and profitability of the store. GOG's assurance are the offline installers. WHAT is EGS's assurance?

Even if Steam continues to exist "forever", that is not guarantee of anything. Although this hasn't happened yet, licenses can be revoked at any time for whatever reason. In reality, that's something we all agreed to.

[WolfEisberg]

Publicado originalmente por brian9824:

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Still, the Epic Store itself is a liability, something LOSING money. Something that hasn't stopped losing money for six years and doesn't seem like it'll become profitable in another 6 years. So WHY would Tencent keep funding it? Why waste money made with Fortnite onto the EGS when they could invest it into something that makes money?

Yep, Tencent has more Stock then Tim Sweeny and has more power then he does when it comes to making decisions at EGS....

That is absolutely false information you are sharing there. Tim Sweeney has the majority power, he gets to make all the decisions, Tencent only has minority votes, while Tim Sweeney has the majority votes and majority power.

https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/sony-and-kirkbi-invest-in-epic-games-to-build-the-future-of-digital-entertainment

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1250624428880343041

[The nameless Gamer]

Publicado originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

And you are dodging questions you can't answer as ever. So I'll ask again. Do I have any kind of assurance regarding the licenses purchased at Epic? Steam's assurance is the stability and profitability of the store. GOG's assurance are the offline installers. WHAT is EGS's assurance?

Even if Steam continues to exist "forever", that is not guarantee of anything. Although this hasn't happened yet, licenses can be revoked at any time for whatever reason. In reality, that's something we all agreed to.

I am aware of that. Under the current circumstances, Steam users can lose a license under only two conditions:
1) Breaking of the ToS
2) Steam going out of business.
Option 2 seems QUITE improbable so far.

[Pierce Dalton]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

You didn't answer, you just said it WILL become profitable. What backs your statement up? It isn't happening. EGS is losing money. This is the present. Forgive me, but I am NOT faithful. I don't rely on the "Trust me, bro" source. External funding can be cut on a moment's notice. Those third-party companies can pull the plug. The EGS can NOT stand on its own and thus doesn't inspire confidence.

It already is profitable because Fortnite is part of the store, just like Counter Strike was and still is part of Steam.

By the way, I wonder what games generated more revenue to Steam in its first 5 years... probably their own games as well.

[WolfEisberg]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

You did not.

Its best if you don't lie

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/6679473667133446586/?ctp=20#c6679473922619387434

[The nameless Gamer]

Publicado originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

You didn't answer, you just said it WILL become profitable. What backs your statement up? It isn't happening. EGS is losing money. This is the present. Forgive me, but I am NOT faithful. I don't rely on the "Trust me, bro" source. External funding can be cut on a moment's notice. Those third-party companies can pull the plug. The EGS can NOT stand on its own and thus doesn't inspire confidence.

It already is profitable because Fortnite is part of the store, just like Counter Strike was part of Steam.

By the way, I wonder what games generated more revenue to Steam in its first 5 years... probably their own games as well.

Valve has more than one horse in the race:
Dota 2
Counter-Strike 2
Half-life: Alyx
Team Fortress 2
The Steam store.

Epic in turn has:
Fortnite
Unreal Engine

And is heavily burdened by a financially non-viable store. And has lost at least one lawsuit against a mega-corporation for which they will ALSO suffer a major financial blow.

[WolfEisberg]

Publicado originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

I literally already answered that in a previous comment, a direct response to the first time you asked that question.

You didn't answer, you just said it WILL become profitable. What backs your statement up? It isn't happening. EGS is losing money. This is the present. Forgive me, but I am NOT faithful. I don't rely on the "Trust me, bro" source. External funding can be cut on a moment's notice. Those third-party companies can pull the plug. The EGS can NOT stand on its own and thus doesn't inspire confidence.

Third parties can pull the plug at any time on Steam too, so there isn't an assurance at all. heck, Valve could decide to be sold to another company, and that company decides to close it down, or charge you an access fee to your games, so you have no assurance anyways with Steam.

And yes, I literally did. because when it is known why they are losing money, and that is because they are losing it on purpose for growth, and knowing they can stop that kind of spending at any time, and knowing that 12% is plenty to pay for the costs so they don't make a loss is just as much of an assurance as Steam will continue on.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por WolfEisberg:

Publicado originalmente por brian9824:

Yep, Tencent has more Stock then Tim Sweeny and has more power then he does when it comes to making decisions at EGS....

That is absolutely false information you are sharing there. Tim Sweeney has the majority power, he gets to make all the decisions, Tencent only has minority votes, while Tim Sweeney has the majority votes and majority power.

https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/sony-and-kirkbi-invest-in-epic-games-to-build-the-future-of-digital-entertainment

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1250624428880343041

Nope, Tencent owns 40% of their stock, Tim Sweeny owns around 28%. No matter how they try to spin it Tencent owns more of the company then Sweeny does even if he is the one currently running it. The investors of the company still have control and the CEO answers to them.