I registered an account with Epic to play Metro Exodus not too long after it was released, which was February of 2019. Whether it helped or not, I also took advantage of the 2 step security system, which is supposed to send you an email or a phone text with a temporary security check code if they detect suspicious activity. Steam uses essentially the same system.
I haven't bothered with any of the free stuff, but have purchased one additional game last month---a sandbox RPG space sim/game called Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, which I've had a lot of fun with. (think redneck outlaw trucker/biker/pirates in outer space)
Anyway, like DBond, I've had no issues with the platform at all. To me, it's just a streamlined version of Steam minus a lot of stuff I don't care about anyway.
For a developer, Epic offers a choice that may yield the people who actually made the game more income upfront and ultimately also in the long run.
Steam takes 30% right off the top of the retail cost of most games they carry. That 30% is a huge cash cow for Valve along with absolutely none of the risks or costs involved with the actual game development. It's also probably one of the reasons that Valve has mostly stopped developing their own games.
The only reason that Gabe Newell has increased his staff is simply to push all the extra wheelbarrows full of cash to the bank. I looked at Google this morning and it reports Newell's current net worth at 3.5 billion. That kind of wealth was generated by Steam and not game development.
On the other hand, Epic only takes 12% off the top but of course, that comes with the one-year exclusivity agreement. That's an extra 18% of the retail price that goes to the developer's bottom line. For a $40 retail game, the developer gets an extra $7.20 gross per game. That $72,000 per 10k unit sales or $720,000 per 100k in unit sales. I'm sure games like Metro or Red Dead II are hitting those kinds of numbers if not more.
Of course, they lose some sales to those who won't sign up for Epic, but then after a year when their games come to the other platforms, they will get a lot of those customers back. Only time will tell if these developers have made the right financial decision---but if they did, it will only mean more competition for Steam--which should be a good thing for us.
Cheers
you are mistaken, developers dont get the cut....publishers do. and do they give us that back like epic claimed ? i see publishers with the same price on both, and when epic is cheaper is a measly 10 bucks. So gabe can push those barrels for all i care, they have a bigger infrastructure to maintain, epic doesnt even have a shop cart, or forums.
That was my mistake for not using the more descriptive term publisher and/or developer. Out of the 3 games I mentioned, two are both published and developed by the same corporate entity. Rockstar games for Red Dead and Double Damage games for Rebel Galaxy are both the developer and the publisher. Most of the small indies are that way also. Actually Double Damage would be considered a small indie since they only have 5 permanent people. This has become so common in the gaming industry these days that I tend to think of them as one and the same much of the time. However, Metro Exodus is the one exception to the games I listed as it does have a separate developer and publisher. I should have simply used the term publisher for them.
Otherwise, everything else I wrote is correct and the percentages quoted were garnered from gaming articles I've read online. You seem to be missing the main point of what I trying to convey and instead only focus on the fact that I used the term developer instead of a publisher or as in many cases a combo of the two. The point I was trying to make was that Epic charges whoever is providing the game much less than Steam. As part of that, Epic gets a one-year exclusivity deal. Also a part of that reduced cost, the Epic platform tends to be more streamlined than Steam, so it doesn't have stuff like forums, achievements, mod workshops, etc.
Sure, what Steam is providing requires more resources and personnel, but I seriously question whether it justifies a commission that represents 250% of what Epic charges. (30% versus 12%) Evidently, the publishers going with the Epic feel that they will do better financially in the long run. Time will tell.
As to Epic's competence at running a platform, remember they only started up at the end of 2018, so they have only been at this a little over a year. Steam had its issues for quite a few years
when they started up. Maybe I've just been lucky so far--knock on wood.
Cheers
P.S. The thing about hiring people to push extra wheelbarrows full of cash to the bank was my sorry attempt at satire.
a little correction for you, but rockstar are developers, take two is their publisher, they also own borderlands. As for lack of feature common man/or lady, even uplay and EA origins had trouble but had the basic features, at least EA had forums before they decided they didnt want to deal with backlash on their products and shut them down.......if you come later the least you can do is take notes from others mistakes and start from there.
I don't know where you got your info about Rockstar, but it is wrong. So let me re-correct you.
Wikipedia lists Rockstar games first as a "games publisher" based out of New York which also owns multiple studios around the world. All of these locations have integral development studios so they both develop and publish their own games. This is pretty much exactly the way I described them as both a publisher and developer. However, at the time, I was unaware of their connection to Take-Two interactive.
It turns out that Rockstar Games is a subsidiary of TakeTwo Interactive. Wikipedia describes Take-Two as a games holding company, also based out of New York that started out as a publisher but then also began to acquire developers and other publishers. Still, Take-Two is not Rock Star's publisher--they are their holding company (owner essentially) Once again Rockstar presently both develops and publishes all of their Rockstar brand of games.
Take-Two interactive owns at least two different game publishing studios which both publish and develop games. One being Rock Star games and the other being 2K games based out of California. 2K is also described by Wikipedia as a game publisher that also develops its games in-house. Borderlands was developed initially by Gearbox, but published by 2K. I think now
2k has taken over the franchise entirely.
As near as I can tell, Take-two interactive has not personally published a game under the Take-two name since 2006. To repeat, they do not publish games for either Rockstar or 2K, but leave those tasks entirely up to the two subsidiaries.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_(company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_InteractiveLastly, here is a list of Take-two published games. Note that Take-two did publish a Grand Theft auto game back in 1998 when they first acquired the title, but then gave it all to RockStar when that subsidiary was formed as their own integral publisher/developer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Take-Two_Interactive_gamesThere have been so many mergers, breakups, and acquisitions of the companies associated with game development and publishing over the years that it pretty hard to keep track of who owns who and who does exactly what so it's very confusing and easy to get wrong or partially wrong. I know I have so many times before and probably will again.
Cheers