Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Devs & Media VERSUS Gamers - A Healthy Discussion.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
    The Epic store has fewer paying customers than all other storefronts both individually and combined. A small number of people will buy it at release. A larger number of freeloaders will pick it up for free when it's offered as a doorbuster. But the largest paying customer will still be Epic games, larger than all other paying pc customers combined.
    Could you share your sources please? I wasn't aware sales figures were released?

    Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
    Let's look at player feedback for a moment on Epic games. There is a forum for developers to communicate with Epic games. Developers rave that this is a great way to speak with Epic and to get feedback on their questions. There is no forum for developers to communicate with their players at the Epic Game store. There is no user reviews at the Epic Game store for players to hold the developer accountable. Bug fixes, due to this, will be significantly slower if done at all. There is a diminished relationship between the customer and the store and also between the customer and the developer. There is a stronger relationship between the Developer and the Store, one which an Ooblets would be more motivated to maintain.
    Why should Epic provide a communication link between the developer and the customer? I know Steam has this and I'm sure it's has many positive stories where developers and customers gave each other feedback, but just because Steam does it, it doesn't mean it HAS to be on every storefront? The Ooblets developers have twitter, youtube, facebook and other accounts where you can leave your comments.
    I'm sure the developers also look at Metacritic and similar rating sites. I think the main topic of the Youtube video was that people seems to think they are entitled to influence the games they play and the storefront they choose to play on.

    Also, the review system is often abused. Steam had to take measures to keep angry mobs from influencing scores. Most review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic also keep an eye on rage mobs trying to influence people's opinion. It's it always fair? When it is fair?

    Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
    What about future decisions, like extra content. They will have released to a diminished audience, mostly of people who received the game for free. Because of the lower playerbase, you are likely to see less content unless they can get Epic to provide further sales guarantees. If Epic says no, then you hold that back in order to help create a new game to sell Epic. The end result is that they are building content, not for the end user, but for the storefront that purchased it.
    Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
    If the deal between a developer and a storefront is this good, it's likely to good enough to do multiple times as long as the deal remains. A future product will be built towards gaining Epic's approval. The sales of the first game won't matter since it was only offered on one storefront and will be blamed on lack of users on that storefront. Feedback from the first game won't reach Epic since there are no forums. Feedback barely makes it back to the developer due to their choice of feedback tools (discord/twitter). The developer can reassure Epic that any issues were resolved regardless of action taken. Content will be built towards retaining Epic as a customer and not towards the end user.
    And what's Epic criteria for getting developers on board? Epic isn't asking the developers to put ads in the games? To add micro transactions? I'm pretty sure the criteria is to make an original/good game that will sell well? The audacity!

    Comment


    • #17
      Faster horses were outside of his means to produce, however.

      It is well within Epic's means to produce a storefront that includes the features which people are asking for (And no, I am not talking about reviews or direct developer contact, they can much more easily start by including little things such as the ability to easily search their catalog, the ability to order multiple products at once, improved account and personal information security, things like that.)

      That would still not satisfy the people who are upset with Epic over the way they conduct business, but since Epic has well and truly gone balls Deep on this, that is unlikely to concern them any.

      Currently Epic Games is the content delivery service that puts most effort into ensuring ad hoc economic stability to games developers, this does absolutely Jack for me though, since I'm not a developer.
      Google Stadia - "Shortly after launch"

      Comment


      • Aidy
        Aidy commented
        Editing a comment
        When those features are finally implemented, what are you going to complain about then?

      • Borghir
        Borghir commented
        Editing a comment
        They seem to be giving 1 or 2 quality games away every week now. You'd rather have a search bar?

    • #18
      Honestly any business that go against its customers should fail but gamers are to large and fractured community to make significant impact especially now that gaming become mainstream Dood

      Comment


      • #19
        Originally posted by Borghir View Post

        Could you share your sources please? I wasn't aware sales figures were released?
        I spent some time digging into trying to put a store by store comparison together last night using real numbers but it's not really possible. I could find good number on users, paying members, etc... for Steam but they were from the start of the year so comparing it to Epic if I had good data wouldn't be particularly fair since Epic was just starting. I watched the financial results stream for CD Projekt red, owner of GOG. They breakdown their earnings and balance sheet but not things like number of GOG accounts, average basket or number of transactions.

        But yeah, data from Epic is sporadic. Some sales figures are released but they fail to disclose breakdowns of sales. Because of exclusives, it's tough to compare store to store competition. Several of Epic's offerings were also sold wholesale to graphics card makers and bundled with those card (Metro Exodus, Fortnite Bundle, Division 2, World War Z). Because of the nature of their exclusivity deals, where they purchase keys in exchange for the product, it is possible that those keys are included in the infrequent sales numbers that have been released. The only place where I could really find any store to store comparison is with Division 2 between Uplay and Epic. Their user count for the Epic store is spread across every platform that Fortnite is on, so it's not even a pc store to pc store comparison.

        There was really no point in looking at further digital distributors after looking at Epic since comparisons weren't worthwhile.

        There are a number of publishers who opt into a game selling tracking program but the number of publishers who don't is far larger. Which means you still can't get a picture of the market without holes in it. Market Analysts follow hardware (Consoles, Memory, Controllers) and then those specific software products that opt in.

        So I need to walk that back due to distributor's secrecy. I'll link a couple sources I did find interesting.

        Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/st...94621363928453
        CD Project Red Financial Stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdBhUN3SZ8g
        VG chartz: http://www.vgchartz.com/
        Division 2 launch comparison, Ubisoft versus Epic: https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/...-2-uplay-sales

        Why should Epic provide a communication link between the developer and the customer? I know Steam has this and I'm sure it's has many positive stories where developers and customers gave each other feedback, but just because Steam does it, it doesn't mean it HAS to be on every storefront? The Ooblets developers have twitter, youtube, facebook and other accounts where you can leave your comments.
        I'm sure the developers also look at Metacritic and similar rating sites. I think the main topic of the Youtube video was that people seems to think they are entitled to influence the games they play and the storefront they choose to play on.

        Also, the review system is often abused. Steam had to take measures to keep angry mobs from influencing scores. Most review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic also keep an eye on rage mobs trying to influence people's opinion. It's it always fair? When it is fair?
        By and large, these games are exclusive to the Epic store. If the goal is to create a place where a community jells around a store then that's a good way to do it. As is, one of the most frequent resources used by Epic store troubleshooting is the Steam forums. Certainly, Epic doesn't need forums but they do themselves a disservice if people are going to their competitor for help.

        I looked up Epic's roadmap just to make sure forums weren't on the list. Reviews, are for what it's worth but it's a long way out.

        A lot of companies offer day one dlc. They aren't releasing the game tomorrow, in fact it's been delayed indefinitely according to Justin Fernandez. I fully believe that planning could begin whenever they wanted it to.

        https://www.gamingscan.com/ooblets-r...er-and-rumors/

        On the point over whether they should make a game that customers like or one that they or epic like, they certainly can. They should make one that Epic likes for sure.

        Comment


        • #20
          Originally posted by Aidy View Post

          Word to the wise; don't go belittling people...
          I'm sorry to hear that you feel the emoji belittled you.

          The vast majority? LOL you'd just been trying to convince me they've got all of their income upfront.
          '
          They received 100% of their sales projection upfront. I was clear.

          That wasn't an argument so it can't be a straw man
          A strawman is a strawman whether you think it is or not.

          Comment


          • #21
            Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
            I'm sorry to hear that you feel the emoji belittled you.
            Don't worry, I didn't feel belittled. Why would I when someone who clearly doesn't understand what they're talking about tries to school me only to get a schooling themselves? It's what I live for

            Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
            A strawman is a strawman whether you think it is or not.
            A strawman is a fallacious argument, and an argument is "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory". What you claimed was a strawman was just my opinion and opinions can't be "strawmen" as they aren't arguments.
            Iconoclast

            Jeremy: ResetEra is a forum full of outrage merchants
            Also Jeremy: Join ExclusivelyGames, a forum full of outrage merchants

            Comment


            • Lucky Shot
              Lucky Shot commented
              Editing a comment

            • Aidy
              Aidy commented
              Editing a comment
              "If someone says something on the internet, it must be true"
              - Abraham Lincoln

          • #22
            Developers and publishers aren't entitled to anything, especially money. Respect has to be earned. When you have developers and publishers disrespecting the people that pay their bills, the fans of the games they make. So of course they are going to throw the same level of disrespect back at them and not buy their games. Then you have the big corporate gaming media trying to run cover for them. They depend on the gaming media to try and push their shitty SJW garbage games on people.

            Comment

            Working...
            X