Microsoft matches Epic, with a 12 per cent cut of revenue

[LSG501]

How times change,CEO of Epic games:
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ight-microsoft

Yeah lets be honest, UWP wasn't the greatest thing ever (although I can see the logic in the concept) but at the same time people like Sweeney (and EA etc) will moan as ultimately it could/would have hit his bottom line.

One thing for certain, Sweeney will always complain if it's something that ultimately could hurt his ambitions of being the main 'game store'... not that I disagree with all his complaints mind.

Sweeney will obviously like this change by MS because it helps in their fight with Apple etc to get the 30% fee reduced (I think it's too high and shouldn't be 30% on subs), as I said earlier it's ultimately about the money.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah lets be honest, UWP wasn't the greatest thing ever (although I can see the logic in the concept) but at the same time people like Sweeney (and EA etc) will moan as ultimately it could/would have hit his bottom line.

One thing for certain, Sweeney will always complain if it's something that ultimately could hurt his ambitions of being the main 'game store'... not that I disagree with all his complaints mind.

Sweeney will obviously like this change by MS because it helps in their fight with Apple etc to get the 30% fee reduced (I think it's too high and shouldn't be 30% on subs), as I said earlier it's ultimately about the money.

I have had an Epic account for yonks as I played the UT4 Alpha,so have an Epic store account. I am not against buying games on there,but so far not found anything I really feel the need to buy. Even 2077 I got through GOG. So I am not against trying out different stores and launchers but what its the way Epic talks which is the issue.

However,I honestly wish Epic just stopped trying to keep attacking its competitors. MS,Valve,etc don't play these sort of things. It really denigrates from them as a company IMHO.

I updated my post with more of his stance changes. The fact is the chap literally was attacking MS for trying to push monopolies,and attacked MS saying they were making performance in Steam games worse,etc. Yet less than 3 years later basically did what he accused MS off,ie,making monopolies,restricting choice,as the Epic launcher does not work under Linux IIRC,etc. The fact is I never realised how much Linux gaming has gone forward,only after tried Proton in a new Linux build since I didn't have a spare Windows Linux. It seems they have now decided to double down on Windows,despite slagging off MS. Even the Epic store was not available in many markets - even China doesn't allow it,despite Tencent being a major investor.

He literally also told reporters,consumers don't deserve a say in what stores they want as devs like him,will make that choice for him. Then see how they tried to screwover other game engines like Unity.

If anything watch Jim Sterling's videos on Epic. He hates how lazy Valve has become with Steam,but he highlights Epic is not this saviour people think they are. After all,are Tencent and similar investors really good companies? They are not.

Plus if we go further - just look at Epic games and their relationship with Nvidia. For a very longtime they integrated so many Nvidia specific technologies in UE. Even UE tended to work better on Nvidia GPUs. The only reason they have probably bothered to even put some AMD specific stuff into certain forks is because of the consoles. However,you have to optimised FOR AMD GPUs in EU based games. Once you go to smaller devs,which have less resources you see the bias towards Nvidia.

So this why all their signalling in 2016 about being saviours is a load of nonsense. If they were so worried about a "fair" market,even 10 years ago why were they in such a tight bromance with Nvidia with the UE?? Surely they would have made the main PC fork of the engine be agnostic towards AMD/ATI and Nvidia??

This is why unlike some here,I don't trust what they say. A Leopard never changes its spots.

Edit!!

Another thing - I think Epic slagging off MS in 2016 made them annoyed. I have seen quite a few MS releases being released on Steam and MS games store,but not the Epic one. It seems MS quite possibly is trying to attack Epic more than they are Steam IMHO. We will see if this is the case,if MS keeps releasing games on both Steam and Valve,and excludes the Epic store.

[Scryder]

I was wondering something... in the article a few times, including the quote from MS it says developer:

"...the developer share of Microsoft Store PC games sales net revenue will increase to 88 per cent, from 70 per cent,"

Later on in the article there's talk about Google Play and Apple again talking about developers. I know on mobile stores devs can go directly to publish games.... but last I checked, most PC games have a Publisher... who are not necessarily the developers... I know there are some, but the majority are NOT.

So what I was wondering with the 70% or 88% is... what is the actual percentage the game devs get? It's a rhetorical question btw.

As far as I see this it's all PR BS from large corporations... and not a "consumer friendly" or "dev friendly" move. I wish more people would see that. Including whoever wrote this puff-piece. Oh well! I'm too cynical these days to fall for corporate propaganda. That's all this is.


We just saw in another thread another Corporation that's screwing around with their "charity" giving of a MASSIVE 5%... and a max of 15% (which need to be done manually, in a hidden menu). How Humble of them!

[Percy1983]

I'm not sure why you think Steam have held a monopoly. Perhaps you could show us where Steam have stopped you selling certain titles on your store?

Do you not agree steam is the default gaming/digital platform in the pc gaming clients much like ebay is the default auction site. Neither have done too much wrong in getting there and aren't doing much wrong in maintaining a monopoly because they don't need to do anything to maintain it as they are the default people think of.

So how do you build market share against monopoly, you use aggressive tactics. This is not a moral issue this is business.


How do you feel about the epic funding games and ports which has brought things to PC which may not have happened before?

Once you stop looking at them as good/bad guys and actually see what they are both trying to its nothing but good for the market as a challenger to steams dominance will bring competition and prices down.

[kalniel]

But your happy with a OS that you don't own?

In the EU/UK we do own it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was wondering something... in the article a few times, including the quote from MS it says developer:


Later on in the article there's talk about Google Play and Apple again talking about developers. I know on mobile stores devs can go directly to publish games.... but last I checked, most PC games have a Publisher... who are not necessarily the developers... I know there are some, but the majority are NOT.

Its more sneaky wording - I assume it means the publishers will keep more of the cut!

[excalibur1814]

But your happy with a OS that you don't own?

In the EU/UK we do own it.

??? I'm under the impression that we own nothing. No games and no operating systems. We 'do' have a licence to USE them, but don't own them. Or am I wrong?

[ET3D]

I really appreciate Epic for leading the way here.

Good move but how many games are bought on the Microsoft store?

Microsoft recently announced a revamp of the store which will allow any software, not just UWP apps, to be sold there (or offered for free). I think that's likely to make it a lot more attractive for both developers and users.

[kalniel]

??? I'm under the impression that we own nothing. No games and no operating systems. We 'do' have a licence to USE them, but don't own them. Or am I wrong?

The EU ruled that a perpetual license is the same thing as ownership. So if you buy a perpetual license then you own the software.