Epic Games could popularise Exclusivity deals in the PC ecosystem

[Doobeedoo]

Exclusives are trash practice, limiting users and are anti-competitive. Maybe learn to compete the other way.

[D13H4RD]

22 hours ago, Apostate said:

beacuse if steam wants toi they could charge us money to access games after we paid for them.

Would they even do so, though? 

 

Remember when they tried to do paid mods? Boy, that sure went well with the community /s

 

Don't forget the one time Microsoft tried to make GFWL a paid service much like its console counterpart. They eventually made it free after a significant amount of backlash. That was way before Steam became the driving force behind the increased adoption of PC gaming, mind you. 

[Trik'Stari]

I'm torn between hating exclusivity deals, and telling Apple users they picked the wrong platform for gaming.

[Terryv]

I think too many people are focusing on the cut epic takes in comparison to valve.

 

Yes valve's take is much higher, but they offer a lot of services along with that.

 

Does epic offer anything besides a storefront?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition, but not at the cost of "exclusives".

[Eaglerino]

As long as I can play it on PC I don't really care where I have to get it from

[RejZoR]

Exclusivity is shit and only hurts gaming. And I sure as hell won't be bending over to one platform because of "exclusive" titles. I bought PS2 for Burnout series and Gran Turismo 4 when console was 99€. I sure as hell wouldn't pay 500€ for a console to play 1 title. I also sure as hell won't use 25 stupid ass launchers to run games. Steam and GOG and I also have Origin which is garbage and sticks out like a sore thumb. Cant' stand UPlay because it's Ubisoft which I've been boycotting for ages now. Epic's launcher is not much different. It's clumsy crap and like I've said, I don't need another god damn launcher. It's retarded.

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Exclusivity is shit and only hurts gaming. And I sure as hell won't be bending over to one platform because of "exclusive" titles. I bought PS2 for Burnout series and Gran Turismo 4 when console was 99€. I sure as hell wouldn't pay 500€ for a console to play 1 title. I also sure as hell won't use 25 stupid ass launchers to run games. Steam and GOG and I also have Origin which is garbage and sticks out like a sore thumb. Cant' stand UPlay because it's Ubisoft which I've been boycotting for ages now. Epic's launcher is not much different. It's clumsy crap and like I've said, I don't need another god damn launcher. It's retarded.

i wouldn't care so much about having so many storefronts/launchers if i didn't have to have the launcher open to play a game. just let me put all the icons on my dekstop, click them and the game launches, not have to wait for launcher X to open...update (if one is pending).....log in....wait for game to launch.

[FezBoy]

While I do agree that exclusivity is bad.........

epic is giving away games for free and that's all I care about.

[Yoinkerman]

I don't get it consoles pay devs tons of money for exclusivity.

 

Nvidia, intel, Microsoft, etc, also all do it for PC games already

 

How is this new

[D13H4RD]

58 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

How is this new

Because it hasn't been done in a larger scale on PC yet, especially for third parties. 

 

Valve does provide a cash incentive to developers with the condition that the game has to be released on Steam, but AFAIK, there is no exclusivity deal, meaning that while anyone who is given the incentive has to release their game on Steam, there is nothing stopping them from releasing it on GoG, Epic's store or any other.

 

Epic's deal is different. While they also offer a cash incentive, another condition is that the game also has to be exclusive to Epic's platform for a year. 

 

Sure, you could say Microsoft, EA and Activision/Blizzard do the same but the one major difference is that these concern their own in-house titles. Epic's deal concerns third parties, specifically indies. 

[Humbug]

On 1/7/2019 at 8:57 AM, Yoinkerman said:

I don't get it consoles pay devs tons of money for exclusivity.

 

Nvidia, intel, Microsoft, etc, also all do it for PC games already

 

How is this new

As @D13H4RD said above It's new to PC gaming because for now the dominant platforms (steam,origin, battlnet, GOG etc) do not do it. They do not approach 3rd party game developers and offer them deals to keep the games away from other storefronts. That's why there are lots of games available on multiple store fronts.

 

Obviously there is free choice so if anybody wants to keep first party games only on their own store front then nobody can stop that. For example EA has every right to keep their games only on Origin, Valve has every right to keep their games only on Steam etc. As long as they don't start coercing outside devs to avoid competing stores.

 

What we want to prevent is this thing degenerating into the console world. As you say paying big money for back room deals is commonplace in the console world and they promote the platforms based on exclusivity. Microsoft and Sony visit devs and make deals to take the games off other platforms. This is what we want to prevent on PC.

 

So far only the Microsoft Store and Oculus store have tried it on a small scale. Thing is if Epic starts playing this game others will respond, and both Valve and EA have billions and billions of dollars sitting in the bank. Many times more than epic. 

 

See the below link with regarding to providing loans to an indie dev. At the moment Valve states that yes it is a requirement to be on steam, but they do not stop you from also being on other platforms.

https://www.vg247.com/2016/06/17/valve-offers-vr-developers-funding-to-avoid-platform-exclusive-deals/

It's better if we maintain a  more transparent open market on PC.

 

[TacoSenpai]

So we are in a day in age where Consoles are becoming more like PCs and PCs are becoming like Consoles...what a time to be alive...

[Nicnac]

can't wait for Fork-knife Tracing (FKX)

[RejZoR]

On 1/7/2019 at 3:28 AM, Fez_Boy said:

While I do agree that exclusivity is bad.........

epic is giving away games for free and that's all I care about.

Literally the only reason I even am on Epic Store. My hamster genes were activated and I need to hoard the games from it. But other than that, I frankly don't have the slightest interest in buying anything from it. Not even sure if I'll ever play the hoarded games given I don't even use their crappy client. Basically similar scenario with EA's Origin. The client is garbage. It's awkward and if you need to format a system, you'll have to reinstall and redownload ALL games. I bought some games on it in the past, but then only the "On the house deals" and nothing else. It's just bad and I'm not gonna buy games on client that's bad and awkward to use. Haven't had it installed for months now...

 

I'm fine with Steam because it's open and works. Same for GOG even though I haven't played their games for a while and currently don't have Galaxy installed. But it's a matter of few minutes before I set all up and re-activate already installed games in it. Good luck doing that with Origin. And Epic's launcher was also pretty bad, but that was months ago when I last tried it.

[Chett_Manly]

Maybe Valve can put down the top hot and monocle and cut their take to 12% like Epic and developers won't be tempted into taking exclusivity deals.

 

Steam is charging 30%... like seriously this is only a problem because some platforms are used to being a total monopoly and able to take a MOB like cut of the revenue!

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

i've never bought games from origins for the same reason, i'm not changing that stance with epic either.

[Humbug]

3 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

Maybe Valve can put down the top hot and monocle and cut their take to 12% like Epic and developers won't be tempted into taking exclusivity deals.

I agree I think steam should at least go down to 20%. They do a great job with the client and infrastructure but seem to be losing touch with the financial realities. Often another 10-18% revenue from one platform is unlikely to stop devs from signing these deals but at least it will be a deterent. Still some devs will decide we will just wait until the one year is up and then launch on steam.

 

But On principle It's not really about steam. Take the example of Ubisoft- they had launched their recent Assassin's Creed and  Division games on both Origin and Steam in addition to uplay. For division 2 they have pulled it off both steam and Origin because Epic made them an offer they could not refuse. Previously their philosophy was to be on more stores to maximise sales. We don't know what the dominant store will be in 5-10 years but either way we should push PC gaming towards transparent competition.

 

I see this as a general industry issue. We don't want to become like the console world with platform wars and people paying each other for exclusivity to stores. Things will only degenerate for consumers, as we have seen here with Linux gamers getting hurt by some stuff not being on steam.

 

I understand that epic has made over a billion from fortnite and they want to invest it to put themselves in a position (like valve) where they make money by providing a store and infrastructure services to other devs. That is all good. The difference is that Valve attracted people to steam via there own games like HL2 rather than paying off 3rd party devs to take games off other stores.

 

We need healthy competition between Origin, GOG, Steam, Epic, Battlenet etc...

[NeuesTestament]

I am refusing to use any other platform than Steam nowadays. Creating a separate account so I can just play this one game? No, I would rather pass there are enough games out there.

 

Steam is an established, secure and open Plattform. You can pretty much publish everything there. I see no reason to switch 

[Humbug]

4 minutes ago, NeuesTestament said:

Steam is an established, secure and open Plattform. You can pretty much publish everything there. I see no reason to switch 

Nobody needs to switch. You can use a different store without quitting steam.

 

The healthy competition between GOG, Origin, Steam, Epic is important. Personally I have bought games from multiple different stores.

[kilgore_T]

currently i need blizzard.net to play destiny 2, bethesda launcher to play fallout76, steam to play tales of beseria, origin to play crysis2, and uplay...only kidding not using uplay at all lol

 

another one added to the mix makes no difference  just means i click on the grey epic icon rather than the blue steam one

[suicidalfranco]

meh, the game will be trash anyway and by the times it starts getting a bit decent, it will go into life support mode and never deal with the rampant hacker player base in order to focus on the next instalment of the series 

[NeuesTestament]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

Nobody needs to switch. You can use a different store without quitting steam.

 

The healthy competition between GOG, Origin, Steam, Epic is important. Personally I have bought games from multiple different stores.

If I make an account for all of those platforms I not only have more login credentials to remember, but I also expose myself to more possible data breaches.

[Chett_Manly]

11 hours ago, Humbug said:

We don't want to become like the console world with platform wars and people paying each other for exclusivity to stores.

Yeah I cannot agree with the console analogy. A console costs money. There is no real cost to using Epic over Steam, or Origin over Epic, its all free.

 

Sure you will have to spend some time to make an account, and add friends, but in the end its free. No is expecting you to go spend $500 on a XBox because you got a PS4 Pro and Ubisoft is now Microsoft only.

 

They expect you to download a different client and make an account.

 

 

Quote

The difference is that Valve attracted people to steam via there own games like HL2 rather than paying off 3rd party devs to take games off other stores.

I found that to be a rather odd statement. This is not consoles, Microsoft is not paying them so they can generate console sales. Epic wants them to be exclusive so Epic gets the 12% cut of revenue off the sales. Epic is not paying them money, Epic is charging them less. 

 

Steam could charge less too. This is competition and I think in the end it will be good for consumers that developers are not losing 30% of a games revenue to the digital store they are on.

[Humbug]

19 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Yeah I cannot agree with the console analogy. A console costs money. There is no real cost to using Epic over Steam, or Origin over Epic, its all free.

I am in favour of the epic store, and other stores. Competition is important.

 

What I am against is signing deals with devs to keep games off other stores. That's what consoles do.

 

19 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

I found that to be a rather odd statement. This is not consoles, Microsoft is not paying them so they can generate console sales. Epic wants them to be exclusive so Epic gets the 12% cut of revenue off the sales. Epic is not paying them money, Epic is charging them less.

The issue is with the signing of exclusivity agreements. They are making deals with devs where the dev forfeits the right to be present on other stores. If a dev decides they want to only sell on epic store due to the favourable percentage that is fine. The issue here is that they are asking devs to sign away the rights to be on other stores.

 

19 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Steam could charge less too.

I agree. They should at least lower to 20%.

 

20 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

This is competition and I think in the end it will be good for consumers that developers are not losing 30% of a games revenue to the digital store they are on.

Asking devs to sign away their rights is not healthy competition. This will escalate into a situation where all the PC stores are competing to get exclusives.

[maartendc]

Sorry, but I fail to see how being exclusive to the Epic games store is even REMOTELY similar to being exclusive on console.

 

If a game is exclusive on PS4, you would have to buy the PS4 hardware to play it.

If a game is exclusive to Nintendo Switch, I would have to buy a Switch to play it.

If a game is exclusive to Xbox, I need to buy an Xbox to play it.

 

If a game is exclusive to the Epic games store,.............

 

SO What!? I already own the PC, I just need to download a separate FREE client. It is not like they are forcing you to buy a new PC to run it?

 

In my opinion, it is about time that the Steam quasi-monopoly is broken. One company having a near-monopoly doesn't benefit consumers. Epic games is doing a lot of things right as far as I can see, offering more of the revenue % to the developer for example. They can either offer the game for cheaper, or choose to invest that money into developing better games. Everybody wins!