|
On April 05 2019 01:54 Plansix wrote:
Developing software takes time and there is no amount of money they can throw at it to make it go faster. It is a talent and resource problem. If they develop it with contract help on the short term, the talent that build the software won't be around to help add to it down the line. I'm not an expert in coding, but I know there is real value to keeping the people who designed the system around to maintain and note the system.
I personally don't care that much. But I have said it before in other threads, my relationship to Steam is about on the level of my relationship to Microsoft Word. And I have less love for Valve, who's radio silent nature went from quirky to indifferently imperial in a few short years. But I get it that people want some of those Steam features I don't use.
I am interested in knowing exactly how much Epic is paying these developers for timed exclusives. My bet is that it is less that people think, but still a substantial amount. From the what I have gleened from the many indie and AAA developers I follow, there is no affection for Valve and Steam in the industry, so ditching them isn't' a hard decision. Especially since Epic are also developers and are open to ideas like "user reviews and forums will be optional." And despite the noise about it on the internet, most people have no problem downloading and using a second client.
The only data point seems to be Phoenix Point and even that is an extrapolation based on them saying that the deal made them more money even if they had to pay back all of their kickstarter funding.
I don't have any problem with Steam and it getting competition. If the game was offered on ten different platforms all at the same price maybe I stick with steam and maybe I move somewhere else. If the game is only offered on one shitty platform because they bought a monopoly I won't bother supporting that game. That said, I would be waiting for game of the year edition release and that seems fairly likely to occur after the epic exclusive period ends so I'm really boycotting something I wouldn't have bought anyway.
|
On April 05 2019 02:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 01:54 Plansix wrote:
Developing software takes time and there is no amount of money they can throw at it to make it go faster. It is a talent and resource problem. If they develop it with contract help on the short term, the talent that build the software won't be around to help add to it down the line. I'm not an expert in coding, but I know there is real value to keeping the people who designed the system around to maintain and note the system.
I personally don't care that much. But I have said it before in other threads, my relationship to Steam is about on the level of my relationship to Microsoft Word. And I have less love for Valve, who's radio silent nature went from quirky to indifferently imperial in a few short years. But I get it that people want some of those Steam features I don't use.
I am interested in knowing exactly how much Epic is paying these developers for timed exclusives. My bet is that it is less that people think, but still a substantial amount. From the what I have gleened from the many indie and AAA developers I follow, there is no affection for Valve and Steam in the industry, so ditching them isn't' a hard decision. Especially since Epic are also developers and are open to ideas like "user reviews and forums will be optional." And despite the noise about it on the internet, most people have no problem downloading and using a second client. The only data point seems to be Phoenix Point and even that is an extrapolation based on them saying that the deal made them more money even if they had to pay back all of their kickstarter funding. I don't have any problem with Steam and it getting competition. If the game was offered on ten different platforms all at the same price maybe I stick with steam and maybe I move somewhere else. If the game is only offered on one shitty platform because they bought a monopoly I won't bother supporting that game. That said, I would be waiting for game of the year edition release and that seems fairly likely to occur after the epic exclusive period ends so I'm really boycotting something I wouldn't have bought anyway.
Paid exclusives for platform and stores are a staple of retail of all forms. Back in the day is was traditional stores that would pay to have a product first to generate traffic. Console makers would pay to have games on their platform exclusively or for a set period of time. The online store space has been weird because Steam was so dominate for so long, they never needed to cut these deals. But that has changed given the rise of Epic and the fact that Steam seems to have failed to capture the new generation of users. It stinks, but it is also never going to go away. Retailers are going to fight over who gets to carry the next hot video game first.
|
On April 05 2019 01:54 Plansix wrote:
Developing software takes time and there is no amount of money they can throw at it to make it go faster. It is a talent and resource problem. If they develop it with contract help on the short term, the talent that build the software won't be around to help add to it down the line. I'm not an expert in coding, but I know there is real value to keeping the people who designed the system around to maintain and note the system.
I personally don't care that much. But I have said it before in other threads, my relationship to Steam is about on the level of my relationship to Microsoft Word. And I have less love for Valve, who's radio silent nature went from quirky to indifferently imperial in a few short years. But I get it that people want some of those Steam features I don't use.
I am interested in knowing exactly how much Epic is paying these developers for timed exclusives. My bet is that it is less that people think, but still a substantial amount. From the what I have gleened from the many indie and AAA developers I follow, there is no affection for Valve and Steam in the industry, so ditching them isn't' a hard decision. Especially since Epic are also developers and are open to ideas like "user reviews and forums will be optional." And despite the noise about it on the internet, most people have no problem downloading and using a second client.
The only confirmed figure we got right now was $2million for Epic exclusivity (although it was for an unestablished brand taken off from Kickstarter, I assume that getting somethiing like Borderlands on board for that would cost significantly more).
The problem with Epic is that they're lacking some of the most basic features and are banking on the exclusives. There was no outrage like that against GOG, which carved their niche slowly but steadily. They started as a platform for abandonware and old, almost forgotten stuff and moved on to releasing AAA titles right alongside Steam. They also have their own launcher (which is completely optional, which I find is a big +) but the services they provide are miles ahead of Epic. They even go as far as allowing you to copy your Steam key to unlock the game you have there (and vice versa if memory serves, it was a while).
People really don't mind different platforms. Diversity is good. Exclusivity deals are fine in the console world but don't make that much sense in the PC world.
|
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old.
|
On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old.
At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? You wouldn't unless you were forced to shop there because they paid all the farmers to only sell food at their location.
I understand that retailers are going to have anti-consumer policies that make them more money. The question is are the consumers going to still buy their products?
|
On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? You wouldn't unless you were forced to shop there because they paid all the farmers to only sell food at their location.
I totally buy in season fruit from this one market because its super fresh and they have dope pies. They have cornered the fresh berries, apples and dope pie market for my local area, so they own my ass once its apple time. The service is not that fast and they have no carts, just baskets.
And I only ever buy one video game at at times, so I'm not bothered by Epic's problem.
|
On April 05 2019 07:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? You wouldn't unless you were forced to shop there because they paid all the farmers to only sell food at their location. I totally buy in season fruit from this one market because its super fresh and they have dope pies. They have cornered the fresh berries, apples and dope pie market for my local area, so they own my ass once its apple time. The service is not that fast and they have no carts, just baskets. And I only ever buy one video game at at times, so I'm not bothered by Epic's problem.
But in that case the market is delivering you a product that presumably you can't get anywhere else because it's local fresh fruit. That doesn't really extend out into the digital marketplace where service is the primary concern and not content.
I'd be content with you not choosing to purchase on steam because you don't care about features like cloud saving, steamworks, trading cards, etc etc. It's when your choice is taken away that you should become concerned.
|
On April 04 2019 09:52 Manit0u wrote:
BL3 most expensive edition: $250. Madness...
In 2015, they offered a limited collector's edition $400 bundle, called the Claptrap-in-a-Box ! It had a remote-controlled Claptrap. Claptrap In A Box
so $250 isn't madess, it's pocket change ! ! !
|
Atari 2600 Space Invaders adjusted to inflation ... was $225.
|
On April 05 2019 08:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Atari 2600 Space Invaders adjusted to inflation ... was $225.
Why would it cost so much? Did they have a team of 30 guys working on it for 3 years or something?
|
i bet you 1-4 guys made the game in a matter of months...with only 1 guy permanent full time.
Back then the primary revenue generator was people putting $0.25 into the Arcade game. Midway/Taito didn't want people buying a $20 game that could replace the arcade experience. As a result, they tacked on a massive licensing fee for the game making it cost $80 USD.
Adjusted to inflation I'm pretty sure the arcade game, Space Invaders, made around 3 Billion USD. They were protecting that revenue stream with a massive licensing fee on the home version of the game.
|
ALso the production scale on video games was so much smaller then. And the cost of building a machine was higher, since it was all hardware driven. It was a different time and the audience was very smol.
|
audience was very small ? i said it made $3 Billion USD adjusted to inflation. Even if that were correct that means it had a big audience. Turns out it made $13 Billion adjusted to inflation and was highest grossing entertainment product of its time.
The Atari 2600 game alone sold 2 million copies. It was ported over to over a dozen platforms including Atari 5200, C64, and NES. It was the #2 arcade game of all time. Arcades used to be everywhere and 7-11's would have 1 or 2 arcade machines.
You don't pull in that kind of cash with an audience that is "very small".
People who get angry about the "current high cost" of video games don't really hold an accurate historical perspective. Its just fits in with outrage culture.
|
Each player gets their own personal instanced "Loot Stream" in Borderlands 3. No more dealing with jerks in your open world games running in and taking all the loot from killing a giant monster.
"Take down enemies and challenges as a team, but reap rewards that are yours alone – no one misses out on loot."
https://borderlands.com/en-US/shop/borderlands-3-standard-edition/#rg="united-states"
i hope this also means players get loot that suits not just their level.. but where they are in their story-line.
|
On April 05 2019 07:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 07:04 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? You wouldn't unless you were forced to shop there because they paid all the farmers to only sell food at their location. I totally buy in season fruit from this one market because its super fresh and they have dope pies. They have cornered the fresh berries, apples and dope pie market for my local area, so they own my ass once its apple time. The service is not that fast and they have no carts, just baskets. And I only ever buy one video game at at times, so I'm not bothered by Epic's problem. But in that case the market is delivering you a product that presumably you can't get anywhere else because it's local fresh fruit. That doesn't really extend out into the digital marketplace where service is the primary concern and not content. I'd be content with you not choosing to purchase on steam because you don't care about features like cloud saving, steamworks, trading cards, etc etc. It's when your choice is taken away that you should become concerned.
Epic is delivering you that fresh borderlands 3. For less fresh video games, steam has your back. But only Epic imports that kind Borderlands 3 action.
|
On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts?
That complaint seems almost petty.
How many games are you buying that it becomes a nuisance to buy them one at a time?
And you just know it's one of their highest priorities sorting that out. Anything that makes sales easier or more likely is usually near the top of the development queue.
|
On April 05 2019 16:08 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? That complaint seems almost petty. How many games are you buying that it becomes a nuisance to buy them one at a time? And you just know it's one of their highest priorities sorting that out. Anything that makes sales easier or more likely is usually near the top of the development queue.
Shopping cart is actually in the long term bucket if you check their dev road map.
https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap
It's just the best example of a basic feature that epic game store lacks. Searching was the low hanging fruit, but they actually added that recently.
On April 05 2019 10:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 07:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 05 2019 07:04 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2019 06:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 05 2019 06:30 Plansix wrote:
They make a lot of sense when the store front is taking 10-30% like a box retailer. All these storefronts are, infrastructure to deliver the video game to us. Like the EB Games of old. At the most basic level yes, but would you go grocery shopping at a store where you can only check out one item at a time because they don't have shopping carts? You wouldn't unless you were forced to shop there because they paid all the farmers to only sell food at their location. I totally buy in season fruit from this one market because its super fresh and they have dope pies. They have cornered the fresh berries, apples and dope pie market for my local area, so they own my ass once its apple time. The service is not that fast and they have no carts, just baskets. And I only ever buy one video game at at times, so I'm not bothered by Epic's problem. But in that case the market is delivering you a product that presumably you can't get anywhere else because it's local fresh fruit. That doesn't really extend out into the digital marketplace where service is the primary concern and not content. I'd be content with you not choosing to purchase on steam because you don't care about features like cloud saving, steamworks, trading cards, etc etc. It's when your choice is taken away that you should become concerned. Epic is delivering you that fresh borderlands 3. For less fresh video games, steam has your back. But only Epic imports that kind Borderlands 3 action.
But content restrictions don't make any sense in the digital marketplace. They've created a monopoly for themselves, but we tend to frown upon those and break them up.
|
They do not have a monopoly on all video games. Just one specific video game. That is just an exclusive.
And it only doesn’t make sense in a digital market place if you ignore market places are just stores run by different people. This is how it has always been in retail. It is just that steam’s dominance made it so everyone put their game on steam. That dominance is being chipped away.
|
On April 05 2019 22:16 Plansix wrote:
They do not have a monopoly on all video games. Just one specific video game. That is just an exclusive.
And it only doesn’t make sense in a digital market place if you ignore market places are just stores run by different people. This is how it has always been in retail. It is just that steam’s dominance made it so everyone put their game on steam. That dominance is being chipped away.
Retailers have always engaged in anti-consumer practices isn't a compelling argument that we should continue that practice. There are real challenges to cutting down exclusivity with physical goods. Those challenges don't exist when you're delivering digital content.
|
On April 05 2019 22:50 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 22:16 Plansix wrote:
They do not have a monopoly on all video games. Just one specific video game. That is just an exclusive.
And it only doesn’t make sense in a digital market place if you ignore market places are just stores run by different people. This is how it has always been in retail. It is just that steam’s dominance made it so everyone put their game on steam. That dominance is being chipped away. Retailers have always engaged in anti-consumer practices isn't a compelling argument that we should continue that practice. There are real challenges to cutting down exclusivity with physical goods. Those challenges don't exist when you're delivering digital content.
I don’t really see having to download free software as huge burden on a consumer, TBH. The consumer is not the top priority in every aspect of selling a product. When it come to the venue for sale, the relationship with the vendor is just as important. Plus there is also the option of not playing Borderlands 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
