PC Game Stores, Why everyone has their own and why it won't return to just 1.

BRiT

(>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
Moderator
Legend
Supporter
Let's face it, PC Gaming is never going to return to the days of only having a single monolithic game store. It's the time to embrace multi-game stores.

Timely series of Tweets because of RDR2 and the Rockstar Launcher, yet another PC Game Store and Launcher, from the every informative ZhugeEX ...

  • - Mega pubs like Acti, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft etc... benefit from running their own game distribution platforms.
  • - They earn more from each sale (Gross Margin = 95%)
  • - They have AAA content that drives players to the platform.

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC, gross margin per store:
  • Rockstar Launcher: 95%
  • Epic Games Store: 88%
  • Steam: 70%

The simple explanation for why RDR2 PC launches on Steam one month later and the reason why more mega publishers are pushing customers to their own store/Epic over Steam.

 
At least Rockstar are smart, unlike the other developers that are trying to pull this off. Rather than losing a portion of sales by ignoring Steam or delaying it for 1/2-1 year, they just release it there a couple months later with a stated release date.

Might as well get what you can at launch even if you lose some sales by ignoring the most used store on the internet. And 2 months should hopefully keep people from getting too angry at you.

That said, I dream of a world where a game is available on every electronic storefront (GoG, Origin, Steam, developer launchers, etc.) day and date so that consumers have a choice in where to buy their games. But a month or two isn't a bad compromise.

Regards,
SB
 
It would be nice if the end price reflected the cost so that publishers don't have to bear the additional cost of selling on Steam.
Unless steam games are going to be $80, publishers will never opt for the same profit, it's always about much more profit.
 
Unless steam games are going to be $80, publishers will never opt for the same profit, it's always about much more profit.
Pretty sure it's against the Steam TOS to price the Steam version higher than other versions.
 
It would be nice if the end price reflected the cost so that publishers don't have to bear the additional cost of selling on Steam.

It would be nice if the various storefronts reflected the amount of investment in the store...oh wait it does. Hence why most people prefer Steam and now GoG with GoG putting significant investment into their storefront.

Also why publisher launchers are generally ass.

Make a good storefront and you don't need to "force" people to use your store by buying exclusivity. Spend the money on your store instead of trying to become a monopoly.

Regards,
SB
 
Did steam charge less for the first couple years when it stunk?

It's always been a 30% share. They've just constantly reinvested in the platform.

They are where they are because they've provided the best experience for both developers and consumers. At first lack of competition meant they were slow to make changes, but once GoG started to get better, Valve also started to implement developer and consumer requests more quickly.

What I don't get is how EGS are managing their service.

Supposedly the share from each purchase is
  • Epic - 12% of each purchase
  • Content Creators with a Creator code - 20% of each purchase (as per Admiral Bahroo). He was pretty clear that it was 20% of the purchase price and not 20% of Epics Share. Certainly a great way to get Content Creators to push your storefront. Admiral Bahroo was certainly pushing hard to have people use his code at EGS to get BL3.
  • Developers - ?
So, if Developers/Publishers get 88%, does that mean Epic are operating at a loss on each sale if someone uses a Creator Code? So they not only pay for exclusivity, they are also willing to take a loss on each sale in order to try to become a monopoly.

Regards,
SB
 
So, if Developers/Publishers get 88%, does that mean Epic are operating at a loss on each sale if someone uses a Creator Code? So they not only pay for exclusivity, they are also willing to take a loss on each sale in order to try to become a monopoly.
Yep, it's a way of using the popularity of streamers and influencers to push EGS into the mindshare of their viewers.

They're likely not willing to put much time and investment into EGS yet due to the amount they're subsidizing just to get people buying games on their platform.
 
You can't buy the features people want, you have to develop them. And you can't just put 50 developers on the project, you have to bring in a few at a time.
 
Compared to who? They just straight up copied Apple's charging didn't they?

They existed first, no? I dont remember anything Apple store related when Steam was first out.
 
Wolfenstein developer weighs in on the Epic vs Steam debate
October 23, 2019
Speaking to PCGamesN, the Wolfenstein developer said “competition is good for the industry. It’s good for everybody, because competition just makes us better”. This sentiment does ring true – at least in theory.

Kindh also dismisses the idea that needing to use multiple launchers is a burden, saying “they just want to have Steam because that’s what they’re used to. For myself it doesn’t really bother me that much at all, it’s just another store for me. I just have to remember all the passwords!”.

Kindh believes that the creation of the Epic Games Store is simply a consequence of a growing market, explaining that “the game market gets bigger, with more games getting released every day. My personal opinion is that it’s a natural growth, compared to how much games development is actually happening”. It is worth noting that Bethesda, the owner of MachineGames, has its own games store, although it has put very little emphasis on exclusivity.

https://www.kitguru.net/tech-news/mustafa-mahmoud/wolfenstein-developer-weighs-in-on-the-epic-vs-steam-debate/
 
I just found out The Outer Worlds is only on the EGS. Oh well I think it will release on Steam at some point and will probably be cheaper then.
 
Back
Top