>Epic employs behavioural specialists tasked in making their games addictive and coerce user into spending with micro-transactions.
Epic also has their own game store that they will happily charge 30% once they have more marketshare. They also want to be able to put their own game store on iOS.
>that they will happily charge 30% once they have more marketshare.
I don't know. They haven't done as much with UE or any other tools, outside of actually charging for non-games (I'm honestly surprised that the Mandelorian was able to be made with no kick back to Epic at all).
Historically Epic has been relatively lenient for how it taxes developers. Say what you want about Sweeny and Fortnite and the Games Store, but I can definitely tell he still takes pride and empathizes with being in the gamedev trenches once upon a time. Can't say that about too many other gaming execs of today.
They're developer friendly because they're trying to get marketshare. They're competing with market leader in Steam which charges 30%.
Don't think for a second that they wouldn't charge 30% once they get enough market power. In fact, in the Apple lawsuit, it was revealed that the Epic Game Store was operating on a $300-$400m loss in order to acquire marketshare. Epic has to increase commission fees in order to break even and make a profit eventually. Epic isn't a non-profit.
Here's a preview how they might treat customers of their own app store if they have market power:
Epic Games, the company responsible for Fortnite, agreed to pay $245 million to settle FTC allegations related to in-game purchases. According to the FTC, the company charged parents and gamers of all ages for unwanted items and locked the accounts of customers who disputed wrongful charges with their credit card companies.
Isn’t that how competition works? Ideally, no company becomes so large that they don’t feel the pressure to remain competitive. Of course there’s countless examples of big players stagnating and becoming rent collectors with a captive market. But, I see that as all the more reason to have competition.
I think it’s rather optimistic to believe the Epic Games Store going to overtake Steam. If that’s the criteria for raising their cut, I wouldn’t expect it to happen anytime soon. Outside of annoying exclusive distribution rights on some games, having another store has given game developers another way to sell and players a way to purchase games cheaper. With that said, I’d guess their real gambit is to create enough pressure to drive the standard 30% down.
Maybe 30% made sense at one point. Maybe it does now. It strikes me that there have been efficiencies that haven’t been passed along to the consumer. Having a competitive market would let us find out.
> way to sell and players a way to purchase games cheaper.
If you believe because the cut is less on epic store (assuming a developer uses all the methods available to a game developer to reduce it) that they then charge less on the epic store you are mistaken. Prices are the same between the two stores.
I'm fairly certain I'm not mistaken. The MSRP may be the same, sure. Some games, however, are routinely cheaper on sale on EGS than they are on Steam. "Alan Wake 2" in particular has been cheaper on EGS and came with "Alan Wake Remastered". EGS has been giving away free games since its inception. They have issued coupons with pretty large discounts ($15 or 33% off) that can be used on just about any game, effectively reducing the price below what Steam is selling games for.
Yes, this is a typical tactic to gain customers, burn money. If you think these incentives will continue should EGS gain some meaningful market share, then you are again mistaken.
We’re in a promotional period for EGS right now. The free games and coupons won’t continue.
I'm still optimistic, but I wouldn't be completely gobsmacked if I was wrong. I would have argued 20 years ago Valve would have done more to lock in their market (I was kind of right, but they are much more clever with it and it doesn't impact consumers). I also would have argued 20 years ago that Sony would topple Nintendo in the portable market.
>Here's an example showing how they're just like any other company:
They aren't really too special on the consumer facing front, I agree. But I still assert they've been pretty goo on the dev facing front. I've heard very little bad about them on the dev end.
>game time tracking and end of year reports mean a lot to some gamers.
some indeed. It's another network effect and it is indeed useless to try and grab people away from something even if EGS had every feature of steam. So I get why Epic didn't try to be a social network (it could do game tracking reports if it wanted to. But that's not selling anyone).
traditionally, storefronts live and die by its library, pricing, and especially exclusives, So I understand how and why they focused on what they did.
Epic also has their own game store that they will happily charge 30% once they have more marketshare. They also want to be able to put their own game store on iOS.