Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
이 토론은 잠겼습니다. 
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
Uh, no, it really isn't. It's anti-competition and anti-open market where people can choose where to buy rather than being locked into one store or dividing people that don't want to support such terrible and unethical business practices. Separating the market as such with a down payment and exclusivity is only to benefit Epic, not consumers. Even then, they clearly are not profitable as a store compared to just fortnite and the mentioned engine royalties which fund this madness.
Getting possibly bigger than GOG by bribing developers is not an "investment paying off", it's a loss-leading tactic to prevent all other stores from having access to the titles, which would clearly sell more on all other storefronts. As mentioned in other threads, despite the immense amount of money tossing they've done; they can hardly get people to spend even $1.81.
Using your entire resource pool to fund something in the extreme negative doesn't make the business grow if only one thing is funding everything else; that's called a bad investment, aka a money pit when you're throwing money into something not making money without fortnite money and aforementioned royalties. epic can't sustain its store without both of those things, which shows they're incapable of running just as a competitor, especially with the clear inability to compete without restricting the market via bribes.
Steam doesn't need to lock people into silly agreements, split the market, or bribe developers into exclusivity.
Except most businesses ventures are fueled by the venture itself succeeding, not a huge pile of money from multiple something-elses.
Show me an investor willing to give away their entire bank account over to an ambitious venture such as a digital store, by bribing people and restricting the market. That's not something worth investing in, that's a liability.
Steams QC is basically like google;
-Does it have malicious code? No? It's fine.
-Does it run? Yes? It's fine.
Steam isn't the digital police, distributors aka developers & publishers, are solely responsible for their games not breaking contracts, rules/laws etc. Do you have any idea how many games are on Steam and the kind of staff they'd need to check every game and every game update?
Stores sell products, with a general QC of "it's not broken", as the factory needs to provide it in a working function without breaking laws. Similar, as mentioned with Devs/Publishers responsible for if their games violate the contract, laws etc. Despite your absurd notions, epic doesnt have a QC they just want to bribe people, to then turn around and give for "free" hoping that people will buy from their store; they don't care what it is, as long as it's popular enough or could be. You're making a mistake of thinking epic having limited games or giving away games in hopes for purchases is somehow "QC". They'd sell you a broken, darn near copyright infringing game if it gave them a dollar.
Ah! the usual response "we are done here" when no one agrees with you.
About those low rated games, poor quality games on Epic, care to comment.
All again the old 'Origin is Malware' crap spouted by people with lack of proper analytical abilities, fueled by people who had an axe to grind with the service (Not like people didn't hate Origin for pulling BF3 from Steam back then)
Of course by Brandolini's Law, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ takes a bigger order of magnitude to refute than to be spread.
-Abstractism developer was banned because of adding scam items to the marketplace (Yeah, that counts as 'releasing malicious code' as he was tampering with the marketplace).
-All the 'cryptominer' stuff comes from a false positive flag from a repackaged executable. Same as happened with other cases where people shouted 'wolf' but there was none:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/95vhor/valve_lets_another_crypto_miner_infected_game/e3vydnz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
-All of this happened at an age where 'bashing Steam' was the fastest way to get views for streamers and youtubers.
Again false, you can take a game with steamworks embedded in it and release it on other platforms.
In fact that's how people knew shin megami tensei was coming to PC and steam. The switch copy contained steamworks code and references to steam.
Although most developers just take 5 seconds to comment it out.
Trying to claim that it's somehow walled because of it is laughable.
They dug themselves into a hole because they've spent over a billion on free games instead of making a store people actually want to use.
So they have to stop offering free games because for every year they offer them that's another 3-4 years before they will even break even, but the minute they stop their site is abandoned....
Combine that with them most likely losing the apple lawsuit and drops in revenue for fortnite and they are in trouble
ANd now EPic has to deal with those lawsuits, and the fact that Microsoft has kinda 1-Upped them.
Eyuip. And lets not forget they also have the Google lawsuit. And if they lose apple they will defacto lose the Google one.
GoG's problem is that they kinda shot themselves in the foot because they didn't quite see what their future wouuld be. The No-Drm thing was basically justa natural aspect of bringing old games forward. The DRM as a rule had to be removed or shorted. RTheir delivery system as well reflects that and its not a bad thing really. TYhjats one of the reasons I keep them on me radar.
GoG at least has carved a niche for themselves and are offering something different and competing on the merit of the services they provide. They will never be as big as Steam, but at the same time will always be relevant and have a place in the market and be able to make good money.
Epic is trying to compete with Steam, but everything about their client and service is inferior, and the only way they have to compete is by engaging in anti-consumer practices that piss off many gamers.
There is just very little demand for Epic and their platform from people who pay money.
I mean look at this bundle on Epic- been on sale for over 2 weeks and less then 5k copies sold - https://www.humblebundle.com/games/epic-games-store?hmb_source=&hmb_medium=product_tile&hmb_campaign=mosaic_section_1_layout_index_1_layout_type_threes_tile_index_1_c_exclusivelyepic_bundle
Code might be there but it's not actually using it. Actually read what I said, it ONLY works with Steam version of the game, it will not and cannot work on games that are not Steam version. It doesn't matter if the code is there since it can't use that code without being the Steam version.
Average paying customer in 2019 spent about $45 on third party games which is pretty good considering EGS only had something like 200ish games through 2019 where a large portion of those were games given away for free. And they had ~ 4 million paying customers in 2019.
Epic makes billions in profits each year even without Fortnite on Apple, they are far from in trouble.
Your argument is moot since there is no way to judge it since there is nothing to compare it to.
How did MS one up them?
You are partially right. For in app purchases for non gaming software, if the developer uses their own payment system and not uses MS payment system, then the developer doesn't share any of that with MS. Again, this doesn't apply to games.
Epic has already been doing this since like early 2019, and it applies to games and non games.
So MS didn't one up them at all, they don't even match Epic since Epic allows it for games but MS doesn't.
Not quirte but they do make alot of money from the unreal engine tech. Which is kinda the sticky wicket. The store isn't paying for itself it is in fact being kept on lifesupport by the other branches of the company..which in itself kinda shows that the revenue model they have does not work..
Yep, but the steamworks code only working on Steam isn't a wall to releasing it on EPIC or any other launcher as you can release the identical game on Steam and Epic without having to modify a single line of code....
So the argument that having Steamworks code as part of a game prevents you from releasing it elsewhere creating a walled environment is completely false.
I'd ask you to cite your source because your numbers don't match what Epic has publically released.
Epic for 2020 Advertised 265 Million spent on 3rd party games BEFORE the value of coupons and other promotions which DRASTICALLY lowers the amount.
They also claim between 56-160 million+ active accounts which translate to anywhere from $4.75 to $1.65 PER ACCOUNT BEFORE coupons. Which is not sustainable and shows a very clear trend. Most of those accounts are not actually buying games, but just using their store to get free games.
That is the crux of Epic's issue. People use them for free games but do not become paying customers and as Epic themselves have admitted the free games won't last.
If you want to go by accounts a store has, then that would put Steam at around $5 spent per account on a store that releases thousands upon thousands of games per year, compared to about $2 per account for a store with about 100 new games releasing to it.
The investment into EGS is being paid for by other things, but actual business operation is covered by their revenue share. Meaning once they are done investing to build up their store customer base the store will continue to be profitable on it's 12% cut.