Paradox Please Don’t Switch To Epic Games Store

[Mauer]

So? Can you suggest a better gambit to break into the market which Steam dominates?

Steam has a near monopoly (except for Fortnite, League of Legends, Overwatch, Minecraft, World of Warcraft, you know, by far the most played games) because it provides a service no other competitor comes even close to, without any exclusives AND giving regional pricing that any publisher is free to opt-in or out of. A better gambit? Simple enough, give a better service, better sales, more features, that's how fair competition works.

 

[Anthropoid]

Steam has a near monopoly (except for Fortnite, League of Legends, Overwatch, Minecraft, World of Warcraft, you know, by far the most played games) because it provides a service no other competitor comes even close to, without any exclusives AND giving regional pricing that any publisher is free to opt-in or out of. A better gambit? Simple enough, give a better service, better sales, more features, that's how fair competition works.

What you seem to be saying is that "Steam offers excellent quality, and if Epic wishes to break into the market in which Steam has historically controlled >75% the way they should do it is to offer even better quality."

In the first place, I would respond that: that is not how you "break into" a market like this. It is how you sustain and grow once you have achieved a nominal degree of market penetration. If we were to examine the history of the Steam digital retail service, I'm sure we'd find that: early on, most of these features did not exist, not even in embryonic form. They were added as the business grew, they were added as "additional perks" for users and perhaps because there was enough consumer market research evidence to suggest they would make a difference. But the core functionality of the service: advertising, listing and transacting games sales did not depend on such things at the outset.
In the second place, I would say: you need to define all those characteristics you just described (service, sales, features) and enumerate how it is that Epic actually fails to meet acceptable standards much less Steam's standards.

Someone earlier claimed that buying from Epic nets them "no benefit," to which I replied, 'Presumably the primary benefit any consumer can net from buying from Epic is a functioning game.' Beyond that, things like friend networks, individualized Wish Lists, Workshops, etc., etc. are "nice to haves" but not necessarily part of the requisite expectation of a large fraction of would-be purchasers. You, and/or the "Burn the EGS Witch" mob might not like the reality of that, Valve certainly would be inclined to not like the reality of that, but the sales figures for EGS' current offerings should presumably speak for themselves? Assuming we had access to them?

Which is to say: if you are correct, then there is nothing to worry about. Because of its lack of "better service, better sales, more features" EGS will go out of business all by itself, with no extra shilling for Steam by gamers at all.

 

[MartinSWE]

So? Can you suggest a better gambit to break into the market which Steam dominates?

My post did not speak on what tactics I think are best for Epic's and it's probably a wise decision on their behalf to force players to use their platform since it's so inferior that very few players would go there voluntarily.

My remark on Valve's actual cut only speaks about how much money Valve makes and not how much money the IP-owner have to give up. Even if Valve as I said make 0 $ on each steam-key sold on stores other the Steam store the IP-owner obviously still have to pay that seller then same cut since it is industry standard.

As you say they likely see it as a 'win' to get people connected and that could very well mean that they are willing to give up a substantial part of their 'direct' cut for a chance at 'indirect' cash in the form of fees from the Steam Market (something that likely makes up a huge chunk of their earnings) and to become the platform of choice for both players and publishers.

So in short, no I do not know that the actual cut is 20 % but to claim as you do that their average gain on each key is still 30 % even though 1 out of 3 are sold outside of Steam thus giving them 0 $ is obviously a false statement.

On why they would allow other sellers to sell Steam keys you have answered the question yourself: It's to get people into the Steam platform and then make money of them.

 

[Anthropoid]

My post did not speak on what tactics I think are best for Epic's and it's probably a wise decision on their behalf to force players to use their platform since it's so inferior that very few players would go there voluntarily.

My remark on Valve's actual cut only speaks about how much money Valve makes and not how much money the IP-owner have to give up. Even if Valve as I said make 0 $ on each steam-key sold on stores other the Steam store the IP-owner obviously still have to pay that seller then same cut since it is industry standard.

As you say they likely see it as a 'win' to get people connected and that could very well mean that they are willing to give up a substantial part of their 'direct' cut for a chance at 'indirect' cash in the form of fees from the Steam Market (something that likely makes up a huge chunk of their earnings) and to become the platform of choice for both players and publishers.

So in short, no I do not know that the actual cut is 20 % but to claim as you do that their average gain on each key is still 30 % even though 1 out of 3 are sold outside of Steam thus giving them 0 $ is obviously a false statement.

On why they would allow other sellers to sell Steam keys you have answered the question yourself: It's to get people into the Steam platform and then make money of them.

I'm sure if EGS is as horrible as is claimed by your mob your worries will soon be over and EGS, and all the silly, greedy IP owners who agree to their Imperialistic exclusives will soon be out of business. Won't that be nice! If we can enjoy another 20 years of ONE firm being in control of 80+% of the games retail market. It would almost be like the good old days when the steel, oil and tobacco industries could set the price for those commodities and effectively didn't have to compete for market share! Imagine! If games cost nearly the same in 10 years as they do today! Won't that be wonderful.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

This is not acceptable Paradox. Do you want to lose all your old fans? Because this is how you will lose us.

I have been supporting you since 2001. I can tolerate botched releases or overpriced DLCs as long as you keep improving them, but I have ZERO tolerance for unethical business practices like third-party exclusives.

Same here. This is intolerable.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Well, this was a rather depressing (if at times predictable) thread to read through, but unfortunately I have to say I agree with most of the dissenting views.

@konbendith - it may be wise to take this thread as constructive criticism / a friendly warning. Turn back - here be monsters.

 

[Rhapsodae]

if anyhing, I'd love to move away from any distributor and support paradox directly. (given they keep good sales

 

[Duuk]

If the GSG is released with an "Early Access" period on Epic, I will NEVER buy it, even after it clears the 1 year period.

Say No To This Nonsense.

 

[Jorlaan]

I say this as respectively as possible: I will NEVER buy this game, even if it is THE game I've been waiting for.
This is nothing short of a company telling it's customers off.

 

[Badesumofu]

You have absolutely zero proof of that. This is not arguing, what you people are doing, it's spreading the beliefs of a sect.

Ah, you've got no experience with the way that capitalist economies function. That explains a lot. Well, I'd hate to ruin the surprise so I'll just leave you to discover this on your own.

 

[Dagda]

You have absolutely zero proof of that. This is not arguing, what you people are doing, it's spreading the beliefs of a sect.

It's a basic paint by numbers business strategy to garner market share.

 

[Taylor]

A better gambit? Simple enough, give a better service, better sales, more features, that's how fair competition works.

That, or be significantly cheaper.

 

[Denkt]

That, or be significantly cheaper.

With a smaller cut they can lower the price of the games and still give the same amount of money to the publisher as other stores.

 

[Taylor]

With a smaller cut they can lower the price of the games and still give the same amount of money to the publisher as other stores.

I agree. I therefore would expect from Paradox that the games sold on the Epic store will be cheaper than the same games sold on the Steam store. But I somehow doubt that will happen...

 

[Franconian]

Wooot. Woooooooot.

I read early access and thought it was 2 weeks or maybe a month.

But a full year?! Are you kidding me?

I have paid hundreds of Euros for PDX games, it may even be already 4 digits. But if that BS is really a freaking year I am done with PDX games.

 

[Pyoro]

Well, I can only echo everyone else; this is a game I will never buy. Of course that's pretty whatever; the mainstream buyer probably won't care, and you'll get a pile of cash on top; surely this reaction here was factored into the commercial decision anyway, so whatever we say here is pointless yelling at clouds anyway ...

I'm still disappointed. I'm really disappointed with PDX in general - every time I recently paid any attention to an update (like the EU4 64bit one, or Stellaris 2.2, or the lackluster Imperator release...) it was a friggin' disaster. I remember back in the EU3 days - and others probably further back - how QA was finally supposed to be good with EU4. But that never really materialized, at least not to my perception. And now I'm hearing that instead of finally doing something about it the solution is to just continue muddle along and call it "early access". And then it's also platform exclusive.

That's the sort of disgusting behavior I usually expect from EA or Ubisoft or Activision or ...

Very disappointing.

 

[Dagda]

That's the sort of disgusting behavior I usually expect from EA or Ubisoft or Activision or ...

Very disappointing.

Or ... Tencent. Which owns a piece of Paradox and Epic

 

[Zarine]

I just remember a time where I was "Steam ? forced internet to play a game ? No way !" (speaking about the early days)
For me it was a degradation of my gaming experience to even think of using steam.
And I wasn't the only one at the time and with time I accepted steam... and so did most of people who were scared to switch.

Is EGS good ? It does what I want a store to do : present, sell and allow download of my games.
Is EGS policy good ? I don't care, I already have multiple software to get my games and launch them. One more won't kill me, I'm already searching the net to get the best deal instead of just looking at steam. And it's the game which is the more important, if I want X and price is correct but only on Chabadabada, I will buy.

 

[M@ni@c]

I think the issue is more that EGS is a piece of datamining malware, as it regularly scans your entire harddisk and sends the results back home.

 

[Alfray Stryke]

I think the issue is more that EGS is a piece of datamining malware, as it regularly scans your entire harddisk and sends the results back home.

So does Steam?
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam