Outer Worlds Epic store exclusive

Originally Posted by azarhal
If Tencent could get away with it, they would be selling the games at a lost just to get users.

Good for them, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Epic.

You keep mentioning Tencent as if they're the ones running Epic. They're not, Tim Sweeney is. Tencent has significant stake in the company, but Sweeney is the founder and majority owner.

And so dawns another age of console exclusives. Because that's what the Epic store really is: a closed garden with all the pitfalls of console publishing hiding on your desktop and pretending to offer PC games.
I'll best weather it just like the last one - just ignore the lot.

What Valve really should do is widen the scope of cuts they take - for a while, until this lunacy ends:
10% flat on all titles but
20% if they also sell on EGS
30% if the publisher currently has any Epic exclusives
40% if the game has previously been an Epic exclusive
That wouldn't hurt them much financially but mix up the landscape quite a bit…

Originally Posted by Moorkh
What Valve really should do is widen the scope of cuts they take - for a while, until this lunacy ends:
10% flat on all titles but
20% if they also sell on EGS
30% if the publisher currently has any Epic exclusives
40% if the game has previously been an Epic exclusive
That wouldn't hurt them much financially but mix up the landscape quite a bit…

Yeah, that'll make more publishers run to Steam.

Valve would never reduce their cut to 10% or anything close to that. That's a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by Stingray
You mean, the exact same thing Steam is? Right on.

But it isn't, obvs! Sure, there is the DRM issue that I've always held against Steam, but EGS is actively going out of their way to reduce choice for the customer, forcing them to switch to their new platform or miss out on games they've been looking forward to, shackling short-sighted developers to themselves after luring them with easy cash and wasting huge amounts of resources on a twisted idea of competition, resources that will in the end by paid for by the customers, because no-one else will, least of all a faceless, questionable corporate giant like Tencent.

Valve have atoned for their sins with general benevolence. I don't see Epic going there. To hell with them!

Edit: Damn, now where did Stingray's post go?

Originally Posted by Stingray
Which would be good for us. Who's gonna complain about a store selling games at a loss? The argument to the contrary is that it might put competitors out of business, but are you really worried about Steam going out of business? They would just adopt the same practices anyway, if that's what it takes to survive. And/or lower their % cut, which would be good for game developers - you know, those people actually making the games that we like. The consumers and developers are winning here, while suits at Valve will get less money - oh no. And you may have to, god forbid, install multiple game stores on your computer, but if that's something that keeps you up at night, that sounds like the ultimate "first world problem".

Selling products at a lost is illegal in Canada, USA and EU territories per anti-competitive laws.

After checking the Epic store "first page" for a bit (reminds me of Netflix but worst), only Metro Exodus is cheaper there than it was on Steam and only in USD. Everything else I checked had a similar price to Steam.

So the consumer doesn't seems to be wining anything except having to install another software on their computers (and what I totally expect: full priced game release on Steam one year later). I'm not sure developers wins much unless they are self-published. Publisher are actually losing money considering Epic Store userbase size right now, so those exclusive deals must be lucrative in some other ways, they would make more money by releasing the game everywhere.

The only one who is winning with this is Epic Store…and maybe Ubisoft who succeeded in driving purchasers to Uplay instead of Epic Store for The Division 2 going by their comments.

Also people talk about Steam, Steam, Steam. For all the games I own on Steam, the majority where not bought on Steam. They come from greenmangaming, humblebundles, bundlestar/fanatical, etc. There is gog too and a bunch of other smaller PC digital games retailers out there affected by this.

edit: the keys sellers might end up somewhat OK because the Epic store will allow key generations though eventually.

Edit: Damn, now where did Stingray's post go?

I deleted it because it could be misleading about my own opinion. My point was that by your logic, both are "closed gardens", as there is no difference between the two except that Epic is cutting some deals that Steam isn't (and such deals have nothing to do with the platform being a "closed garden"). But I don't actually agree with the conclusion myself - I don't think either should be called that.

Originally Posted by Moorkh
But it isn't, obvs! Sure, there is the DRM issue that I've always held against Steam, but EGS is actively going out of their way to reduce choice for the customer, forcing them to switch to their new platform or miss out on games they've been looking forward to, shackling short-sighted developers to themselves after luring them with easy cash and wasting huge amounts of resources on a twisted idea of competition, resources that will in the end by paid for by the customers, because no-one else will, least of all a faceless, questionable corporate giant like Tencent.

That's pretty much just ridiculous spin.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Selling products at a lost is illegal in Canada, USA and EU territories per anti-competitive laws.

No clue about outside the US, but selling products at a loss isn't illegal in the US, that's an utterly ridiculous claim. Sure, predatory practices can be illegal, but only if they violate anti-trust law. Simply selling a product at a loss does not violate anti-trust law.

Besides, I didn't literally mean that Epic is selling anything at a loss anyway. I doubt they are, I would imagine they hope to make money on each of these deals. I linked that page to give a general description of the strategy where you apply very aggressive pricing to try to build up a customer base / brand / visibility. Also of course, in this case, the difference mostly lies with the (presumably sweet) deals they're cutting with developers, pricing to the end user is largely the same.

So the consumer doesn't seems to be wining anything except having to install another software on their computers (and what I totally expect: full priced game release on Steam one year later). I'm not sure developers wins much unless they are self-published. Publisher are actually losing money considering Epic Store userbase size right now, so those exclusive deals must be lucrative in some other ways, they would make more money by releasing the game everywhere.

The only one who is winning with this is Epic Store…and maybe Ubisoft who succeeded in driving purchasers to Uplay instead of Epic Store for The Division 2 going by their comments.

More crazy spin. You really think a publisher would sign up for one of these Epic deals if they're going to lose money overall? Or you just think they don't know yet, and you know better than the guys who make a living doing this?

Consumers will win when/if there's more competition in this area. It's laughable that anyone is attempting to argue otherwise. (And before someone says it…no, "competition" doesn't mean that every game needs to be sold in every store. Part of the competition here is stores competing for developers by giving them better revenues or better deals.)

Originally Posted by Stingray
No clue about outside the US, but selling products at a loss isn't illegal in the US, that's an utterly ridiculous claim. Sure, predatory practices can be illegal, but only if they violate anti-trust law. Simply selling a product at a loss does not violate anti-trust law.

Should tell that to Boeing who was suing Bombardier just last year in the US saying they were selling their new planes at a loss to Delta.

Originally Posted by Stingray
More crazy spin. You really think a publisher would sign up for one of these Epic deals if they're going to lose money overall? Or you just think they don't know yet, and you know better than the guys who make a living doing this?

I mean that Epic Store with its current userbase size cannot generate the same revenue than Steam would (CDProjekt/GOG abandoned store exclusivity for Gwent because of that). That means those exclusive contracts comes with financial guarantees from Epic to the publishers otherwise nobody would sign those deals.

Everyone came to that conclusion the moment the first exclusive deal was announced. Well except you it seems.

Well, you guys can do your noble protest thing all ya want.

I'll be getting Outer Worlds day one (and probably get the Sinking City on as soon as I see some reviews). The rest I'll just wait till the year exclusive is up and buy on gog (Metro, etc)…I would probably be waiting that long anyway for a deep sale.

Sure the Epic storefront/launcher kinda sucks and is missing many features it should have (mainly reviews & forums) but I'll get over it.

I don't understand the gripe about another launcher honestly. Just set it where it does NOT auto-start with windows. Only run the damn things when you're actually using them. Big deal.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Should tell that to Boeing who was suing Bombardier just last year in the US saying they were selling their new planes at a loss to Delta.

That's a complex case involving antidumping, countervailing duties, and government subsidies. There's nothing illegal about selling products at a loss in the US - stores do it all the time as loss leaders. It only becomes illegal if you're the dominant player, trying to exterminate the competition - then it becomes an antitrust issue. If you're the one trying to break into a market - no problem.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Should tell that to Boeing who was suing Bombardier just last year in the US saying they were selling their new planes at a loss to Delta.

No need, I'm sure those guys already know what they're doing and believe they have a case in terms of violation of anti-trust law.

Here's an FTC link for you that specifically mentions that selling products at a loss is NOT illegal, unless the situation is right where it creates some sort of violation of anti-trust law:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp…-or-below-cost

I mean that Epic Store with its current userbase size cannot generate the same revenue than Steam would (CDProjekt/GOG abandoned store exclusivity for Gwent because of that). That means those exclusive contracts comes with financial guarantees from Epic to the publishers otherwise nobody would sign those deals.

Everyone came to that conclusion the moment the first exclusive deal was announced. Well except you it seems.

While I agree a game sold on Steam would sell more copies, your conclusion isn't necessarily correct because a game sold on the Epic store could generate the same revenue as it would on Steam while still selling a lot less copies. 1.43M copies sold on Steam would generate the same revenue as 1.14M copies sold on Epic, assuming the same price. And the difference becomes even bigger if your game uses the Unreal Engine and you have to pay that extra 5% royalty with Steam that you don't with Epic.

Originally Posted by Stingray
1.43M copies sold on Steam would generate the same revenue as 1.14M copies sold on Epic. And the difference becomes even bigger if your game uses the Unreal Engine and you have to pay that extra 5% royalty with Steam that you don't with Epic.

If your game sells in those numbers, Steam will reduce their cut to 25 or even 20 per cent, so, no, not really. You'd have to sell more than 1.3M on EGS to come out ahead, and EGS has nowhere near that reach…

Originally Posted by Moorkh
If your game sells in those numbers, Steam will reduce their cut to 25 or even 20 per cent, so, no, not really. You'd have to sell more than 1.3M on EGS to come out ahead, and EGS has nowhere near that reach…

Whatever, you can reduce my numbers below the threshold, or adjust them for the lower cut once you pass Steam's lower-cut threshold. Your comment isn't technically correct either, because it depends on the price of the game. (The threshold is based on revenue not copies.) But it's all beside the point. Point is you make more revenue selling less games on Epic so you can't simply conclude that you're making less revenue cause Steam would sell more games.

On a side note, Metro Exodus seems to be doing fine on Epic:
https://www.vg247.com/2019/03/20/met…ames-store-ll/

Sorry, but where does it say in their GDC announcement it is exclusive? It is still available on Steam as far as I can tell.

edit: just read that Obsidian has confirmed it will release on Steam early 2020 so a bit of waiting i guess.

I find this lame, and a lame excuse also for any publisher that goes with exclusivity.
As people should already know (learned) from consoles exclusivity does not mean competition!!!

Also soon we will game the google game store… and I'm pretty sure they will want another kind of exclusivity…

Time to play more old games, one year passes in a flash.

PS: ofc Metro is selling well on epic, the game is good, but that's not the point!
I the consumer care about me not about the new yachted of another CEO

I think fair competition means that the game should be released on different platforms at the same time and its up to the consumer to make up their mind where to buy and the provider to set their price in agreement with the developer/publisher.

This exclusivity or timed exclusivity seems to go against this - but making money is business and fairness is not usually a concern.

What I really care about, and I am sure I am in the minority here, is having the freedom to buy a game and install it on my PC without having a DRM or client running in the background (however small). I don't need to justify why I want this or convinced otherwise.

Originally Posted by SpoonFULL
What I really care about, and I am sure I am in the minority here, is having the freedom to buy a game and install it on my PC without having a DRM or client running in the background (however small). I don't need to justify why I want this or convinced otherwise.

You might not necessarily be in minority there. I've talked to a lot of people who said they don't like the fact that DRM restricts who you give the game, or in this case who you don't. When the games were on physical discs, you could easily lend them to your friends. Now you can't really give your account to your friends just so they can play the game.

I've never bought a game directly from Microsoft before. How does that even work? Client? Game library? DRM free? Is it simply connected to the account I already use to log in to Windows?

Originally Posted by Maylander
I've never bought a game directly from Microsoft before. How does that even work? Client? Game library? DRM free? Is it simply connected to the account I already use to log in to Windows?

It uses your microsoft account and if you are on windows 10 it is included in the OS. It gets added to your library and downloaded when you want to play it - much like any other online game store.

I actually agree in principle on DRM - I object to running blackboxed code that treats me as an untrusted party on my own PC. But, I'm also a realist, and I don't think it's going anywhere. If you're running Windows, you're running various types of DRM. If you have a recent GPU, that will have DRM hardware built into it. Your browser almost certainly incorporates DRM for media, and so on, and on.

I do think this idea that exclusivity is not a valid form of competition doesn't really hold up, though. You'll find just about every major store in the world uses exclusivity in some way or other, often by paying producers to make a product for them, which they then rebrand as their own, and sell only in their stores. I could literally sit here all day listing examples of the common uses of exclusivity in various types of businesses.