Epic reduce their cut to 0% for the first $1 million in revenue for devs on the Epic Games Store : games

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Sounds like it's time to play through the free games I got before epic folds like a card table and revokes my access to them.

In a sane world, the library could host the people's digital store front with no cuts taken from the sales. Gaming is our culture, we should preserve it. We should collectively own it. We should be free to sell the games without a middleman taking a cut.

[–] suite403@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

I don't have an issue with a platform taking a small cut, but the 30% steam takes is ridiculous.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] easily3667@lemmus.org 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (9 children)

[deleted]

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 24 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

I am against monopolistic competition practices and that includes exclusivity deals and predatory pricing.

And as far as I know, Epic does this more than Valve or GOG. Granted, Valve doesn't need to, because they are already the main player, but they also mostly avoided enshittyfication for now.

Granted it is hard to enter a market that is already dominated by another company, but instead of doing those business practices they could offer a better service.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 21 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Steam is a monopoly because it is the only one of these platforms to actually be good.

[–] bulok@lemmy.world 18 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Epic can even beat them if they just improved their store, but they would rather fight other stores so that it would be worse for everyone.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 5 points 4 weeks ago

It's more than the store they need to improve.

They're not just playing catch-up either.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

... and it still won't dent Steam's de-facto monopoly.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 33 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

I would rather buy a game on steam, or better yet on gog, than giving my money to a company that is trying to make store exclusive games a thing.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

How are they affording this? It can't be a sustainable model, right?

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 21 points 4 weeks ago

Here's the details on the financials

https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/exclusive-the-numbers-behind-epics

They'd been paying a fortune for other ways to get more titles which never panned out. Steam said fuck the little guys so they're trying to capitalize on that right now.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago

Easy. On EGS most games don't sell at all, so 0% of $0 is still $0. They get most of their money from Fortnite.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 28 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Fortnite, and it's not. The store loses them hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 weeks ago

Dont they also get royalties from Unreal Engine?

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 36 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

That's the kind of competition I want. Not a plucky newcomer with fresh ideas, but an industry titan able to burn more money than some companies ever see in an attempt to undercut the competition. They surely aren't factoring this as a deficit to recoup when they pull a massive reversal after securing market dominance. That's never happened in the history of capitalism.

Epic can huff my huffables.