-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Deep Silver is pulling Metro Exodus from Steam, makes it Epic store exclusive.
- Thread starter GrayChild
- Start date
Stuart360
Member
I dont understand why people keep saying Steam has a manopoly. Like i said earlier, Steam allows pretty much all their games to release on any launcher, and even internet key sites. Thats not being a manopoly, quite the opposite actually.
Just because most PC usrs stick to Steam doesn't change that.
Just because most PC usrs stick to Steam doesn't change that.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Epic is trying to establish themselves as competition for Steam and they simply won't do that unless they continue to make timed exclusive deals.
Personally, im not a PC gamer so this doesn't affect me but if I was and really wanted to play Metro Exodus on PC, I would just buy it off the Epic store simply because I want to play the game and wouldn't care which store im playing the game on.
As for Metro Exodus, I already have it pre-ordered for PS4 so im good to go but I wish "gamers" would care more about the "games" as opposed to the business decisions made by the respective publishers.
Personally, im not a PC gamer so this doesn't affect me but if I was and really wanted to play Metro Exodus on PC, I would just buy it off the Epic store simply because I want to play the game and wouldn't care which store im playing the game on.
As for Metro Exodus, I already have it pre-ordered for PS4 so im good to go but I wish "gamers" would care more about the "games" as opposed to the business decisions made by the respective publishers.
Iorv3th
Member
It's industry standard, do you think walmart, gamestop, amazon and other retailers that sell codes and even boxed games with codes in them are charging too much at 30%? Shouldn't we raise a fuss about MS and Sony charging 30%? If it's just too much, than it should be too much for all distributors/stores.
I do think Steam could afford to do more in order to keep big publishers from leaving, but it's not really relevant to the 30% is too much narrative.
sol_bad
Member
Sites like Humble Bundle even offer DRM free versions and Steam versions in a single purchase, more choice for consumers. This is up to the publisher/developer of course. Publishers and indie devs have choice with regards to Steam and they pass that choice on to consumers.
If any publisher/developer only choose a Steam release, that is not Valves fault, that is the publisher/developers fault as THEY are too lazy to offer a separate solution or they want their game attached to some form of DRM. Again, not Valves fault.
*EDIT*
Why are people who only console game even commenting on this topic?
*le sigh*
If any publisher/developer only choose a Steam release, that is not Valves fault, that is the publisher/developers fault as THEY are too lazy to offer a separate solution or they want their game attached to some form of DRM. Again, not Valves fault.
*EDIT*
Why are people who only console game even commenting on this topic?
*le sigh*
Last edited:
Sentenza
Member
Since Nathan Grayson felt like he didn’t make himself enough of a fool ranting about toxic pro-consumer mentality on Twitter, he just decided to double down on Kotaku with some of the most unhinged nonsense I’ve seen from the gaming press in recent times: https://kotaku.com/after-epic-store-deal-steam-users-review-bomb-metro-ga-1832209151
I swear the entire thing sounds like a deliberate hit piece aimed at Steam and an Epic-sponsored infomercial.
I swear the entire thing sounds like a deliberate hit piece aimed at Steam and an Epic-sponsored infomercial.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Traditional retailers typically sell copies at 25% margin (as per my friend who used to work for Nintendo).
Also, retailers have to take in inventory (tons of copies at a time). Digital stores sell copies one by one. I don't think Steam commits to a publisher they will buy 1,000,000 digital keys up front for Game X. So retailers have a lot more to lose.
Digital sales are like a pawn shop selling on consignment. They don't pay the seller anything until it is sold. In return for not paying up front money to the seller, they offer to pay back less from proceeds.
However, digital sales cuts are different. They take a bigger cut than a brick and mortar store.
Last edited:
Sentenza
Member
Blatantly false. Most retailers take between 40 and 60% of each copy, while an additional 10-15% goes on royalty fees for manufacturers if it’s a console game.
Here’s a breakdown of physical vs digital from a publisher, even if quite old at this point: https://www.mcvuk.com/business/opinion-retail-vs-steam
Salient quote:
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
http://news.gamestop.com/static-files/21878875-e2cd-4030-92c7-de589db6681c
Gamestop Annual Earnings 2017
Page 22
New Software Gross Margin: 22.9%
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
You are taking proceeds and factoring in all kinds of publisher/royalty costs that whittle down net revenue to $3 for the developer studio.
I'm simply comparing storefront margins.
I never said a dev might make more money at the end of the day even if Steam gets a bigger cut, since they can cut out the costs in the middle (like not having to find a big publisher to market and make the game for them in a plastic case).
However, my opinion still stands. A digital storefront shouldn't be so greedy to get HIGHER margins when all they do is allow gamers to download copies one by one with no inventory costs. They have basically zero risk except the time to get a webpage up and running for Game X. Traditional stores have to go through logistics and paying for millions of dollars of copies and hope and pray they sell or they are stuck with it.
We'll see how well Epic does at 12% margin. If they do great and are profitable, it will show the other digital stores with the standard 30% is overinflated.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
That's a false assumption. Looking at an old 2005 GS Annual report, gross margin on new software was only 21.4% (page 31). So actually, it's improved slightly by 1.5% in the past 12 years.
http://news.gamestop.com/static-files/027bacf5-530a-4968-b5a0-a7b88128c968
As I said, I'm looking strictly at purchase and resale margins. What net proceeds a publisher/developer gets after all the nickel and diming they do against one another is on them. Over the past 12 years, GS margin on new software is around 22%. Which means their cost is 78%. How that 78% is divided up is on the game studios/publisher/royalty fees to console maker.
Wolfgang Jr
Banned
Why would you be IN an abusive relationship?
Sentenza
Member
I hope not too well, for several reasons overall, but especially because lowering the share so aggressively is not going to harm Steam and Epic too much, but basically kill all the little guys in the market. No more GoG, no more Humble Bundle, no more Gamergate, no more GMG and no margins to allow key resellers to exist, either.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
I find this hilarious since Steam is essentially a monopoly. Also lol.
*sigh* The same 6 people in the world owning everything under the entertainment label doesn't make them a monopoly!
Ok
Last edited by a moderator:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
If it takes off, it might hurt the smaller digital stores, but isn't it all about helping the game maker getting a bigger slice at 88%?
Sentenza
Member
No, it's not.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Because you say so?
Sentenza
Member
No, because it factually isn't.
Even less so compared to the way Epic is acting.
You'd be hard pressed to point a single game on Steam that is bound to a contractual obligation of exclusivity, while the exact opposite is true for most of the (very few) titles currently on the EGS.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
You are saying Steam can't be a monopoly because it doesn't have exclusive titles? Not because it completely dominates pc digital distribution of games and can just take/demand what it wants from game makers?
Kadayi
Banned
See the thing is Hardware Man I wasn't disputing whether you had a Steam account. I was questioning about how invested you were in it as a platform in terms of use, and the very fact that you got so loud and defensive about it speaks volumes about that aspect. I don't doubt that you game to some degree, But nothing you've shown either here, or in your forum post history suggests that you're a particularly committed gamer.
Sentenza
Member
Aside for the fact that Epic itself boasting about how their Fortnite launcher should have the same number of active monthly users than the entire Steam service (something that they never needed to prove, on a side note) should contradict your claim by itself, and these are just two players among many in the market, what is Valve demanding/taking from devs exactly? Of what are exactly talking about, instead of spreading vague, obfuscating bullshit?
octiny
Banned
Sheesh, you're not even trying now. Man, what a lol worthy waste of a response.
Expected better.
Next time you call out someone, come with more ammo. Because it's clear you're out.
PhoenixTank
Member
And it is because you say so? See? This argument is utter twaddle.
How does Steam fit the actual definition of a monopoly? Closer to a market leader given the massive (but not absolute) market presence.
There are other shops in town, but most people don't shop there (at all or often) because the selection is for relative market niches they don't care about (but others do) or they don't like what is on offer as a service.
There is absolutely an argument for Steam being the incumbent in need of a wider shake up from an insurgent, so to speak. Epic, so far, is not that insurgent IMHO.
If we're just equating "monopoly" to "too big, big bad" or casting too big a shadow over the rest of the market, then just say that, eh?
Makariel
Member
It's not a monopoly, it's a platform. You can still play most games on PlayStation or xbox, which are competing platforms. That is what I'm planning to do if this game is any good, since the ps4 allows me to play this single player game offline and I can even sell the game after I'm done. Epic won't allow me to sell it further or play offline. It's just a shit service and here in Europe not even offering a price cut. I usually prefer steam as a platform over PlayStation or xbox given the choice, but in this case it's clear to me that the only way I am playing this is on console.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
What claim? You are saying exclusives are a monopoly. I'm saying they aren't. Specially since you can buy these games on consoles across multiple retailers. Is Nintendo a monopoly? Why can't a game company have its own digital store? Specially while another digital distribution store charges them for distributing their own games AND charging a premium price. Know how they can get away with that? Market superiority. Its a monopoly on digital game distribution on pc although technically that isn't the correct word but its damn close and why I even said it. Vague. The fact that somebody will finally give them a run for their money is something EVERY consumer should want. Corporations aren't your friends.
"Look its not a literal monopoly because even thought they own most of the share on digital distribution of pc games they don't COMPLETELY own the market so yeah!" So you knew what I meant yet still posted all that.
Kadayi
Banned
octiny
Banned
Kadayi
Banned
octiny
Banned
Kadayi
Banned
octiny
Banned
Kadayi
Banned
Fun as this is. Some of us have work to do. Keep staying casual though Hardware man. It's clearly all your good for.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
octiny
Banned
No problem, Mr. L
You're welcome to come back anytime to enjoy more of this odd fetish of yours.
Last edited:
Sentenza
Member
Already linked: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/deep...t-epic-store-exclusive.1471640/post-253756862
Still deeply embarrassing article.
Dontero
Banned
Insert company doesn't have 100% so it is not monopoly.
MS didn't have complete monopoly over OS and yet they were handed fines multiple times.
Intel didn't have complete monopoly and yet they were handed multibilion fines for it.
Fact is that if you want to sell game on PC and you aren't EA or Ubisoft then you have to use that store.
Epic getting more market share is better for everyone.
I am shocked that so many people have issues with it. But that is i guess what fanboyism does to your brain.
You start to think illogically.
Fact is that Steam has like 90% of exclusives on PC market.
Epic getting one or few basically changes nothing and this is somehow a problem ?
Fact is that if Epic store grows (and others) it will be the best scenario for consumer and developers themselves.
With more bigger stores you will get better prices, devs will have to pay less share as cut and each new store will mean more games could find places in peaople hands because this means more "shelves" to look on.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
I find it petty that certain people are going back to old games that have nothing to do with this and giving it bad reviews. Like it matters or something. I mean just read some of those reviews they might as well be gigantic babies that want their chicken tendies. Kotaku caring enough to make an article is also hilarious.
Yeah well its still not a monopoly! Y..yeah!
bati
Member
Well, developers or publishers are always free to sell the games on their own respective platforms. 30% might sound a lot but it gives you access to an install base of dozens of millions users and all logistics (forum, update system, cdn, etc) taken care of. I'm willing to bet that every developer except maybe the top 1% would incur more overhead costs if they went about it on their own. There's a reason that it used to be said for indie pc games that if you're not on steam you don't exist. Of course that's a little less true these days because of the store/market saturation but still.
The same principle applies for physical goods, a farmer can choose to set up a stall by the road or drive from house to house to sell his potatoes or he can sell them to a supermarket at lower price but higher volume.
Sentenza
Member
Yeah, t's probably a pointless form of protest, quite frankly (not that customers are left with many more ways to voice their discontent, anyway), but what I find even pettier is that Nathan Grayson is deliberately trying to paint Valve as the purposeful instigator of this reaction. Which is a baseless claim bordering almost into intentional libel.
Also, doubling down on his previous delusional claim that Valve's pro-consumer mentality is something "super toxic", he insists in a long LONG trend of posting articles and twitter posts almost impressively committed on the apparent sole goal of shitting all over the company.
I mean, check every single hyperlink text in this very article. They all lead to other articles putting down Steam that he uses to reinforce his point... And they are all signed by him.
"Look how much shit there is to say against this service! Oh, and by the way I wrote basically all of it!"
At the same time, he's not skipping a chance to promote, endorse and commend the Epic Store (even attributing it questionable merits (like "honoring Steam preorders", which if anything is most likely up to Deep Silver/Koch).
I'm struggling to assume naivety and good faith on his part at this point. It would be one thing to think he was talking from a position of ignorance, but that's clearly not the case. He's way too dedicate to the cause.
I think he knows exactly what he's doing, no matter how obfuscating he tries to be about it.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Name sounds familiar. 5 guys?
Sentenza
Member
Yep. That one. Not that I care about that story in particular.
I find his credibility questionable for the things he writes, not for who he happened to fuck.
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
He just seems like a great guy its all
Morning, morning!
Been keeping an eye on this thread. There was some good old fashioned gentle ribbing but it just seems to be escalating slightly into a more barbed and bitter exchange for certain posters. Let's just try and take five, and maybe reword a few of the more emotive/personally directed comments at each other to keep it pleasant. Don't really want to have to remove people from the thread.
Been keeping an eye on this thread. There was some good old fashioned gentle ribbing but it just seems to be escalating slightly into a more barbed and bitter exchange for certain posters. Let's just try and take five, and maybe reword a few of the more emotive/personally directed comments at each other to keep it pleasant. Don't really want to have to remove people from the thread.
Dontero
Banned
I think i got the core of issue here.
If Metro devs would chose Epic store as exclusive platform on their own there would be no such debacle, because people would know it won't mean much and their stupid decision would bite them back because releasing game on PC and not getting on Steam would hurt anyone financially.
If Metro devs would get money for exclusivity from Humble Bundle or any other store like GOG, it would not matter. Because those are small players and in longer time frame it won't mean much. Steam slaves would just ignore it.
The problem here is that Epic did it and they are floating with money.
Which means Metro is not the end but the beggining.
Which means soon there will be more games coming there as exclusives.
Which meansa sooner or later they will hit game which will be dear to some users.
And that is what scares them. Because they know Epic has real chance to eat good chunk of Steam market share to point where devs will be able to freely pick stores looking for best value for their work. And when that happens Steam no longer will be automatic assumption to release it there. Which means less games released on Steam which means Steam slaves will have to drop their community reward, trading cards, badges, levels and whole other crap that tied them down to that platform.
So it is not about Epic being bad store or lacking features, it is about fear of having actual Steam competitor and leaving Steam bubble.
If Metro devs would chose Epic store as exclusive platform on their own there would be no such debacle, because people would know it won't mean much and their stupid decision would bite them back because releasing game on PC and not getting on Steam would hurt anyone financially.
If Metro devs would get money for exclusivity from Humble Bundle or any other store like GOG, it would not matter. Because those are small players and in longer time frame it won't mean much. Steam slaves would just ignore it.
The problem here is that Epic did it and they are floating with money.
Which means Metro is not the end but the beggining.
Which means soon there will be more games coming there as exclusives.
Which meansa sooner or later they will hit game which will be dear to some users.
And that is what scares them. Because they know Epic has real chance to eat good chunk of Steam market share to point where devs will be able to freely pick stores looking for best value for their work. And when that happens Steam no longer will be automatic assumption to release it there. Which means less games released on Steam which means Steam slaves will have to drop their community reward, trading cards, badges, levels and whole other crap that tied them down to that platform.
So it is not about Epic being bad store or lacking features, it is about fear of having actual Steam competitor and leaving Steam bubble.
thelawof4
Member
It is exactly because it is fucking exclusive to the EPIC store and the store sucks in comparison to others and especially STEAM. If Metro were still on Steam it could most likely be sold anywhere else but Tencent/Epic need the media attention to kickstart their store.
And there is no Steam bubble to speak of. I buy my games where i as a costumer get the best package in terms of service ( and that is not only price). I actually prefer gog.com and the drm-free games from humble bundle but Steam is literally heaven for pc gamers.
Last edited:
Chittagong
Gold Member
Wow, didn’t see this coming. Epic is making bold moves with that Fortnite cash to corner the PC launcher market.
PC gaming, or rather, buying and launching games, is such a mess all around. Every option has something wrong.
Steam
+ huge library across publishers
+ excellent identity, multiplayer and cloud functions
- Big picture mode and 4K support remain a shit show after years
- Unreasonably large revenue share
Epic
+ Reasonable revenue share
+ A couple of recent exclusives
- Small library
- Almost no functionality
Microsoft Store
+ Integrated with the OS
+ Crossplay with Xbox
- Everyone hates it
- Small library
- Unreasonably large revenue share
Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard launchers
- Worst of all worlds
The problem Epic faces is that Steam can negate their main advantage, the revenue share, in a single management team meeting. After that they are left with money hatted exclusives and an extremely barebones launcher.
I guess Epic is betting on Valve being stubborn enough long enough.
PC gaming, or rather, buying and launching games, is such a mess all around. Every option has something wrong.
Steam
+ huge library across publishers
+ excellent identity, multiplayer and cloud functions
- Big picture mode and 4K support remain a shit show after years
- Unreasonably large revenue share
Epic
+ Reasonable revenue share
+ A couple of recent exclusives
- Small library
- Almost no functionality
Microsoft Store
+ Integrated with the OS
+ Crossplay with Xbox
- Everyone hates it
- Small library
- Unreasonably large revenue share
Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard launchers
- Worst of all worlds
The problem Epic faces is that Steam can negate their main advantage, the revenue share, in a single management team meeting. After that they are left with money hatted exclusives and an extremely barebones launcher.
I guess Epic is betting on Valve being stubborn enough long enough.