Steam vs Epic Games

[Tosh]

Why would someone refuse to sell elsewhere ?
What's the point ? Why not sell on both ?

Who in their right mind would be like "Instead of selling to two pools of people... I'm just going to sell to one smaller one, for no benefit".

they already have some partners who are refusing to sell on Steam,
for example the new Anno 1800 or The Division 2. and they have time exclusive deals for Borderlands 3,
Shenmue 3, Ashen, Control, Outer Worlds ...

so its not like they cant find anyone who wants to work with them.
if they can keep going like this, it will affect more and more people and then there will be a breaking point.
it all depends on the brands they can get and their endurance.

 

[Reprise]

Why would someone refuse to sell elsewhere ?
What's the point ? Why not sell on both ?

Who in their right mind would be like "Instead of selling to two pools of people... I'm just going to sell to one smaller one, for no benefit".

The same companies who have taken up exclusivity deals a million times since the dawn of capitalism, because the offer was too good to turn down after weighing up their options?

 

[GhostTrick]

they already have some partners who are refusing to sell on Steam,
for example the new Anno 1800 or The Division 2. and they have time exclusive deals for Borderlands 3,
Shenmue 3, Ashen, Control, Outer Worlds ...

so its not like they cant find anyone who wants to work with them.
if they can keep going like this, it will affect more and more people and then there will be a breaking point.
it all depends on the brands they can get and their endurance.

But that defeats your point though. All of those had paid deals. Your point is that at some point, those people will do the same for no money ? Why would they ? The point here is that they get paid.

Those partners (Ubisoft) arent refusing to sell on Steam. They are paid to not release on Steam for a timed period. That's the point.

The same companies who have taken up exclusivity deals a million times since the dawn of capitalism, because the offer was too good to turn down after weighing up their options?

Yes, those who have taken exclusivity deals. Tosh's point though is that some will do it without taking money this time. When there's no offer, why do it ?

 

[Reprise]

Yes, those who have taken exclusivity deals. Tosh's point though is that some will do it without taking money this time. When there's no offer, why do it ?

Ahh, gotcha. Sorry, missed that.

 

[reminisce]

Perhaps exclusive funding plus the 88% vs. 65% developer revenue incentive is reason enough for creators to ditch steam altogether?

 

[GhostTrick]

Perhaps exclusive funding plus the 88% vs. 65% developer revenue incentive is reason enough for creators to ditch steam altogether?

View attachment 3590

First of all: We're talking about devs doing it without fundings. For real, I just replied that one post ahead. second:
That (the 5% fee on top) applies to UE4 games and only for the first year on Epic Store.
Third: Doesn't change the thing: Why not sell on both if you have no exclusive contract ?
Guess what: CDPR is selling Cyberpunk 2077 on GOG/Steam/Epic. It's a far bigger game than epic exclusives as of right now. And yet they release on everything.

 

[reminisce]

First of all: We're talking about devs doing it without fundings. For real, I just replied that one post ahead. second:
That (the 5% fee on top) applies to UE4 games and only for the first year on Epic Store.
Third: Doesn't change the thing: Why not sell on both if you have no exclusive contract ?
Guess what: CDPR is selling Cyberpunk 2077 on GOG/Steam/Epic. It's a far bigger game than epic exclusives as of right now. And yet they release on everything.

Perhaps developers feel steam’s cut is unfair?

 

[GhostTrick]

Perhaps developers feel steam’s cut is unfair?

If they were, why all those deals are about a year ?
If you feel like something is bad, why do you need to be paid and only for a year ?
Perhaps developers knows that Steam provide an important backend for their games.

 

[Tosh]

But that defeats your point though. All of those had paid deals. Your point is that at some point, those people will do the same for no money ? Why would they ? The point here is that they get paid.

Those partners (Ubisoft) arent refusing to sell on Steam. They are paid to not release on Steam for a timed period. That's the point.





Yes, those who have taken exclusivity deals. Tosh's point though is that some will do it without taking money this time. When there's no offer, why do it ?

because there are games that dont have any big supporters like EA, Ubisoft or whatever.
if they already released a game on Epic (because Epic helped them) and it was all good and they are satisfied,
there is a chance that they will stay on that platform.

and then if Epic has (simultaneously) enough stamina and they can find more exclusive deals for big brands
they will automatically gain more users because people dont want to wait.
and once Epic has a steady "big enough" user base, they dont have to pay extra just to make it Epic exclusive.
the salesnumbers will be good enough to satisfy both partners
and the developer / publisher will still get the better Epic conditions.

Playstation or Xbox or Nintendo exclusive games COULD get a lot more sales, if they would release them on all consoles.
they arent doing it, because the involved parties are okay with the numbers as they are.

it will just take a lot of time and they have to do a lot of luring with exclusives, cheap deals and updated features.
if you look at the articles of the Epic exclusive deals, i think money is not really one of their problems.
just like Steam and all the other platforms, they have to slowly find ways to force people to use their platform.

im not saying that it will work but it can. people were against all of the other platforms and exclusive deals
but they are still alive.

 

[reminisce]

If they were, why all those deals are about a year ?
If you feel like something is bad, why do you need to be paid and only for a year ?
Perhaps developers knows that Steam provide an important backend for their games.

Perhaps developers know the incentives of initial exclusive revenue on top of other revenue options?

 

[GhostTrick]

because there are games that dont have any big supporters like EA, Ubisoft or whatever.
if they already released a game on Epic (because Epic helped them) and it was all good and they are satisfied,
there is a chance that they will stay on that platform.

and then if Epic has (simultaneously) enough stamina and they can find more exclusive deals for big brands
they will automatically gain more users because people dont want to wait.
and once Epic has a steady "big enough" user base, they dont have to pay extra just to make it Epic exclusive.
the salesnumbers will be good enough to satisfy both partners
and the developer / publisher will still get the better Epic conditions.

Playstation or Xbox or Nintendo exclusive games COULD get a lot more sales, if they would release them on all consoles.
they arent doing it, because the involved parties are okay with the numbers as they are.

it will just take a lot of time and they have to do a lot of luring with exclusives, cheap deals and updated features.
if you look at the articles of the Epic exclusive deals, i think money is not really one of their problems.
just like Steam and all the other platforms, they have to slowly find ways to force people to use their platform.

im not saying that it will work but it can. people were against all of the other platforms and exclusive deals
but they are still alive.

That's where you get the wrong idea. Today Epic has to pay publishers to COME to their platform. The victory for Epic would be for those publishers to stay there. But staying exclusively there ? What's the point ?

Your comparison isnt making a slight of sense here.
"PS/Xbox/Nintendo exclusives could have more sales if they released elsewhere". You're aware that it's not the same workload at all ?
In one case, you need to developp a new port. In the other case, you litterally just need to upload it. Why wouldn't you do so ?

You're thinking it in a console mindset hence why the whole premise is broken.

 

[GhostTrick]

Perhaps developers know the incentives of initial exclusive revenue on top of other revenue options?

Yeah, I dont deny that part. But read what you wrote maybe ?
You're specifically saying, with Tosh, that they'll soon refuse other revenue options on top of not getting revenue from exclusivity. Why would they ? You're telling me "because they hate steam". And when I ask you "why they only stay exclusive for a year" you tell me "because they'll make more money a year later". Right, so as I said, without a big cheque, there's no reason for them to be exclusive. Literally 0.

 

[reminisce]

Yeah, I dont deny that part. But read what you wrote maybe ?
You're specifically saying, with Tosh, that they'll soon refuse other revenue options on top of not getting revenue from exclusivity. Why would they ? You're telling me "because they hate steam". And when I ask you "why they only stay exclusive for a year" you tell me "because they'll make more money a year later". Right, so as I said, without a big cheque, there's no reason for them to be exclusive. Literally 0.

Maybe developers choose to by principle or because they are privy to information speculators are not?

 

[GhostTrick]

Maybe developers choose to by principle or because they are privy to information speculators are not?

Right, so when developpers are paid not to release on Steam, they still release on Steam a year later for more revenues.
Yet when they wont be paid anymore, they'll make full exclusives for reasons ???

 

[reminisce]

Right, so when developpers are paid not to release on Steam, they still release on Steam a year later for more revenues.
Yet when they wont be paid anymore, they'll make full exclusives for reasons ???

Maybe those reasons are good enough to developers?

 

[GhostTrick]

Maybe those reasons are good enough to developers?

Yeah but what reasons ? You failed to express them.
I'm stating the following:
Today, despite the advantage according to you of the Epic Store, even when Epic pays money upfront, games still release on Steam a year later after exclusivity (which means even if they are paid not to release on Steam, they still release later).

Now you're trying to make me think that, when Epic is paying them not to release on Steam and devs still do a year later, they'll suddenly stop releasing on Steam and only on Epic, for free ?

 

[reminisce]

Yeah but what reasons ? You failed to express them.
I'm stating the following:
Today, despite the advantage according to you of the Epic Store, even when Epic pays money upfront, games still release on Steam a year later after exclusivity (which means even if they are paid not to release on Steam, they still release later).

Now you're trying to make me think that, when Epic is paying them not to release on Steam and devs still do a year later, they'll suddenly stop releasing on Steam and only on Epic, for free ?

Maybe developers know more?

 

[Tosh]

That's where you get the wrong idea. Today Epic has to pay publishers to COME to their platform. The victory for Epic would be for those publishers to stay there. But staying exclusively there ? What's the point ?

Your comparison isnt making a slight of sense here.
"PS/Xbox/Nintendo exclusives could have more sales if they released elsewhere". You're aware that it's not the same workload at all ?
In one case, you need to developp a new port. In the other case, you litterally just need to upload it. Why wouldn't you do so ?

You're thinking it in a console mindset hence why the whole premise is broken.

again, they have to pay them now but if they just keep going and going and going with exclusive deals (and the right ones)
they will reach a point where they digged up so many impatient people that the userbase is big enough
to establish fixed partners. and if they can find a lot of them, it doesnt matter what opportunities they could have
on other platforms, they are simply ignoring it for the sake of the partnership.

exactly like EA's Fifa, Battlefield 1 or 5 or Blizzards games are ignoring every platform besides their own
and they are okay with that. they could get way more but they decided that its good enough.
if Epic has a better support or better conditions in general, they can find partners that are fine with ignoring Steam.
not every partnership or deal has to be about the highest possible salesnumbers ever. it just has to be good enough.
Steam is not some magical wonderland thing that every developer or publisher needs.

 

[GhostTrick]

Maybe developers know more?

Maybe start making sense first.

again, they have to pay them now but if they just keep going and going and going with exclusive deals (and the right ones)
they will reach a point where they digged up so many impatient people that the userbase is big enough
to establish fixed partners. and if they can find a lot of them, it doesnt matter what opportunities they could have
on other platforms, they are simply ignoring it for the sake of the partnership.

exactly like EA's Fifa, Battlefield 1 or 5 or Blizzards games are ignoring every platform besides their own
and they are okay with that. they could get way more but they decided that its good enough.
if Epic has a better support or better conditions in general, they can find partners that are fine with ignoring Steam.
not every partnership or deal has to be about the highest possible salesnumbers ever. it just has to be good enough.
Steam is not some magical wonderland thing that every developer or publisher needs.

What partnership ? You know a partnership involves money ?

You keep telling me about EA and Blizzard. Yeah, they have their own platform. So there's a reason they push for THEIR platform.

So basically, if a platform is big enough, you expect developpers to skip a bigger platform for no money involved, just because "well I like those guys they are my friends !".
That's not a partnership.

I'm still.looking for the reasoning where instead of selling to two places, you decide to sell to one place, for no money involved.

Because one doesn't exclude the other. It's not because you release on Steam that you cant release on Epic nor the other way around.

And I dont buy into your "free partnership" idea either. That's not how things work.

 

[reminisce]

Maybe start making sense first.




What partnership ? You know a partnership involves money ?

You keep telling me about EA and Blizzard. Yeah, they have their own platform. So there's a reason they push for THEIR platform.

So basically, if a platform is big enough, you expect developpers to skip a bigger platform for no money involved, just because "well I like those guys they are my friends !".
That's not a partnership.

I'm still.looking for the reasoning where instead of selling to two places, you decide to sell to one place, for no money involved.

Because one doesn't exclude the other. It's not because you release on Steam that you cant release on Epic nor the other way around.

And I dont buy into your "free partnership" idea either. That's not how things work.

Maybe developers make more sense than you?