Following the Metro Exodus debacle, Borderlands 3 just had to go and make things worse with their own Epic Games Store exclusivity.
Leaving aside any personal opinion I may have on Epic Store as a whole, I don't really think it was a mistake. The sales are good and I'm pretty sure the exclusivity deal granted Gearbox some cash on the side. Plus, they will most likely eventually release it on other platforms/launchers in the future. Unless it's first party or some random biased decision, exclusives are becoming a thing of the past.
Can you give me factual numbers are are you just going by the word of a pathological liar Randy Pickford
Well, I guess if you put up the metric of "ignore the person who has all the figures" there's not much we can say until monthly reports come out. I mean, if Randy gave you numbers and they were correct, would you still believe them?
So, your just going to say that it's a lie because you dont like gearbox's CEO? Did he have any reason to lie? Did the metro developer have any reason to say the same thing? What exactly do they gain by lying? Do you think they hope by lying that all the EGS haters will forgive them? Do you think they care about that? I'd say they care more about their investors wanting to know the game did well despite the exclusivity, because I'm sure they may ask, and lying about it would eventually show up on investor reprorts.
@rainslacker Don't want to play into the farcical views too much here, but i'd imagine they'd only have good things to say about 'sales' considering what Epic will be paying them for the privilege of that exclusivity; if the cut difference was so important to the majority of developers you'd sooner see a mass exodus rather than a carefully curated library of timed exclusives from EGS. The investors likely don't care about overall sales as much as overall profit- and that can be accounted for sooner with exclusivity and later again when it arrives on broader platforms that the general consumer is more likely to purchase from.
@c4 If the data is true, and it doesn't appear that EGS causes sales to lower, then it's possible that we will see more games go to the service, regardless of if epic pays an additional fee to make it happen. The extra money made from exclusivity can be had by anyone who follows the requirements, and epic isnt paying all these devs to make this happen. That extra cut alone is pretty significant, and can make an initial loss from no steam release seem like it won't hurt, and potentially could actually be better in driving profits. What it comes down to is that the publishers and devs are going to look at the numbers, not the controversy. Some may care more about the goodwill of the vocal minority, but money has this strange effect on business, and investors want a return on their profit before the publishers or devs start making money on a project. Just the way it is, and EGS is still fairly new to the market. More publishers are testing the waters, and if they keep having success, they arent going to look back and say they should have just stuck with steam with them taking a higher cut.
@rainslacker I just don't currently see the correlation with the cut providing such a boost when so many games aren't going for that Epic exclusivity just yet- it seems especially odd in the manner all these exclusives work out, Epic don't require any game to go exclusive to gain the extra cut, they just have to use the platform and the Unreal engine. So, it's clear to me at least that the cut is far less of a factor than the benefits of being financially compensated for being exclusive to begin with. All in all, it will really depend on how Valve respond to the EGS, a library and legal update to Steam won't solve these ongoing exclusivity issues beyond devs not promising to release on Steam then going exclusive to Epic.
@rainslacker I believe Gearbox is privately owned, so I think those Investor reports are staying on Randy's thumbdrive. I don't doubt that the concurrent player count is higher than Borderlands 2 like he said, but I also fully expected he would go out of his way to make this EGS deal seem great no matter what after all of his "bitch and whine" comments. In reality, we'll never know if it was a mistake because we don't know what a Steam launch would have been. I still think it's not a good look for EGS to have Pitchford as an outspoken supporter.
I'd like to hear the actual numbers too. To the best of my knowledge, the whole "sales are great" mentality comes from their double their previous concurrent users which could easily be misleading and just be a reflection of the series increased popularity and profile as opposed to meeting sales targets. Same with the new Metro "our best selling game on PC" was what I recall reading which once again for a lesser known series that is increasing in popularity was probably to be expected. If they don't release actual proper sales statistics, I guess only time will tell just how well they sold with what they do with the sequels.
We wouldn't see a sudden mass migration if the numbers supported that sales aren't significantly lessened. Keep in mind, we're talking a difference between a 30% cut, and a 18% cut, or in some cases a 12% cut. That's a pretty significant difference in revenue when you're talking about a million or more copies. That's about $8 a copy, which is 8 million dollars per million copies sold That means they can take a loss of about 200K copies, and still make the same, but it also sets up a precedence of putting pressure on the competition to lower their rates, so maybe in the long term they can make out better. It's purely a numbers game, and if the numbers support it, which Epic would be able to provide actual sales to entice publishers, so don't need to rely on random devs to make PR statements, then the move will be through attrition. It wouldn't be a mass exodus, and other things may happen in the mean time. Epic is offering incentive, and in some cases, extra monetary gain by paying an additional up front sum. As far as not seeing the gamers being reluctant to not use the EGS, we don't know that that this is a significant enough number to make a difference. Millions already have the EGS just because of Fortnite, and the reality is, that despite all the forum complaints about it, most people just don't care. Just like most people don't really care about all the other stuff forum gamers bicker about every day. They just want to play the game, and the only thing preventing them from doing it on PC, would be if they decide not to support EGS.
you really think someone else needs to look up the info for you. by now you should know games are selling just fine on the epic store. here's a story on metro: exodus selling 2 and a half times better than the last metro game did on steam. and no, randy pitchford did NOT write the article below. https://www.polygon.com/201...
Wasn't a mistake? It created a stigma within the PC gaming scene … for a developer already largely disliked due to the man running the show. They say sales are better than ever; but never factored in the fact it's the long awaited third title in a highly loved franchise; showing numbers for one store, in comparison to several. All they did was add fuel to the fire for pirates. Many WILL go to EPIC store for the game. We're gamers; that's our s**t. I think you'll be surprised at how many will pirate; or hold out for a dirt cheap version on other stores. I'm rather confident this will only break even or, not even hit, Borderlands 2 sales specifically for this move. Talking PC sales, of course.
You know they can get metrics from all the systems, not just PC, right?
PC perhaps, but on consoles, damn near every person on my friend list on both Xbox and PS4 are all playing Borderlands 3 right now.
@Cruz "All they did was add fuel to the fire for pirates" yea, because pirate certainly would stop if only games were on Steam...... And noone pirated games before EGS was available.... Honestly, I just really don't care what launcher is used for the games I want to play, as long as the games work well and the content of the game is not hindered. That said, the constant Steam fanboy whining almost has me rooting for EGS at this point. EGS is an un-established platform that is relatively new and is adding features by the day, Steam has been around for years and was basically the only option around. Obviously this means Epic will have to incentivize people to use their platform as they would be taking a risk. As they become more established the platform becomes more feature-rich and they offer SUBSTANTIALLY lower fees to the devs, then they will probably take over the market, or Steam will have to reduce their fees in order to compete. It is called competition and the fact that you guys are so opposed to it, and want one big head to just rule the whole industry is pretty sad.
@GottaBjimmyb It's funny. This argument has been going for a while, and it's tired. But it's evolved now. The prevalent argument now, the words I read the most are "Steam fanboys whining" The EGS "supporters" are now going on and on about people whining than the people upset about exclusivity. None of this was about "Just having games on Steam" as you say, considering most people will have Steam, UPlay, Battle.net, Origin... possibly even the Rockstar Launcer for GTAV, Bethesda Launcher for their games... GOG? There's heaps already. You can't say "Steam fanboy" because that's not what this is about. We already use 4+ launchers. This all began when a game that was about to be released on multiple launchers, or "platforms" was pulled from them all with money and hidden away on the Epic Game Store. You say "only option around" when referring to Steam. You're not really adding anything to this argument, only that you seem to be blindly pointing a finger at Steam despite us all using many launchers to buy our games. Instead of giving us a choice, they took it away.
@wolf "This all began when a game that was about to be released on multiple launchers" Which game and which "multiple launchers?" I can't wait to hear your answer. "despite us all using many launchers to buy our games. Instead of giving us a choice, they took it away." Can you name some steam games that have availability on multiple other launchers? I am sure they exist but are a massive minority, and suspect the titles you list probably aren't going to be very impressive. You are basically arguing, against every business model in existence, especially within distribution/sales. Walmart vs kmart vs BJs vs Amazon, etc, for example, all sell products other make, they frequently make deals with manufacturers of the products that only allow sale in that store, for the benefit of better shelf location, marketing, bigger buy-in from store, etc. Not hard to understand.
Sales have been really good
Get ready to make all of the turds on n4g angry.
Gearbox saw none of that cash. Randy Pitchford saw some, but the developers sadly did not.
Sales are good so it wasn't leave emotions aside for a minute and look at it from a business decision
What evidence is there that sales are because of Epic? None at all. If the game was released on Steam it would have sold AT LEAST the same amount as there is no barrier to entry for a PC user having both storefronts. Game sold well in general, not because of Epic.
Because of the tweets about the user base for 3 being double the maximum player base of 2 on PC. So yeah it would have sold regardless that's exactly the point so leave emotions out of it and look at sales it has sold well if that's due to epic or steam it's irrelevant
^^^ the tweet was double the concurrent users logged in, not double the sales or at least the one I saw was. That is potentially misleading and doesn't necessarily reflect on the overall sales. If they came out and said something along the lines of "We've now sold over 1m copies on EGS" then there would be no doubt of how well it sold.
The point is not whether games sell on Epic better than Steam. The point is, whatever Steam fanboys are fantasising (games selling a copy or two on Epic) is not true. It shows that many people don't really give a damn where a game is as long as they want to play it.
"What evidence is there that sales are because of Epic? None at all. If the game was released on Steam it would have sold AT LEAST the same amount as there is no barrier to entry for a PC user having both storefronts." Right, so if the sales would be the same, except there is a 12% fee per sale vs 30%, I would say they made a perfectly fine choice no? They would have needed to sell more than double the units, not to mention any value they received by launching on EGS. Not hard to understand.
These turds wiritng fake news opinions look like Trump out here lyijf their ass off for clicks.
Lol. This article is full of contradictions.
No it's not!!! Wait... yes it is... UGH!!!
Haha. It's a mistake, even though sales are great, and they will eventually be on other stores, but........ reasons.
Borderlands 3 had the most successful PC launch in the franchise history. So no, the Epic exclusivity was not a mistake. I understand that people have issues with Epic. I get it. But so far games like Borderlands 3 and Metro Exodus have far exceeded expectations on PC. So if we're being honest, it's clearly worth the backlash.
There's been no factual numbers released so it was only Randy Pitchford that said numbers were good. Epic pays a portion of the sales of any exclusive game on their store so it's going to be inaccurate no matter what numbers is plucked from thin air.
refuting an unknown with unknown is not a fact either!
@Seafort "it was only Randy Pitchford that said numbers were good" Yes, and considering he's the head of Gearbox he would know better than anybody.
So, let me get this straight, you're telling me that if they DIDN'T launch exclusively on Epic Store that they wouldn't have received these record breaking sales? Because if it was on Steam and GOG as well the sales would have tanked and been poo? It didnt sell super well because BL3 was a long time coming and people really want it?
I think its saying that the EGS exclusivity hasn't been detrimental to the sales of the game. It's very possible, and even likely it would have done better if it released on steam as well. Same if it also released on a y number of other store fronts. If it was exclusive to the windows store, maybe even people would have brought it there.
@rain Exactly, people just want the game so its silly to praise EGS like it was the reason it sold more than previous games. When in reality it would have sold more if it wasn't exclusive.
Yeah. I can certainly agree that its success wasnt due to EGS. Maybe I misread your comment for my first reply
Chances are BL3 could have done really well even if Gearbox made their own launcher (that isn't advice by the way, Randy) Metro exodus reports a sales increase and so does Gearbox on Borderlands, the main factor for these great figures is down to the rising popularity of gaming as a whole more than any specific platform. so yeah, absolutely correct Jester.
@Drunken "you're telling me that if they DIDN'T launch exclusively on Epic Store that they wouldn't have received these record breaking sales?" Nowhere did I say that. As rainslacker said, being exclusive to EGS hasn't resulted in lower sales. That was my point. We have at least two high profile games that launched exclusively on EGS that weren't negatively impacted by the exclusivity, despite heavy backlash.
You do know if it was launched on steam alongside the epic store, no one would of bought it on the epic store right? Only reason it's doing so well (on epic store) is because people want to play it now instead of waiting 6 months.
Ok. Assuming you're correct, what's your point? Either way, being exclusive to EGS didn't result in low sales for the game. Whether it would have sold more on Steam is irrelevant to the point.
The launch of a game is irrelevant nowadays when you are trying to take peoples time and sell add on content to them. Many failures of a game have had amazing launch sales, but failed to keep people playing them after that. The people who were going to buy it regardless have already bought it off EGS and now we'll see how those sales keep up over the next 6 months till the Steam launch. I saw Dragon Age Origins week 1 was slow but as time went on, sales increased over time, whereas Dragon age 2 had an even better launch week then 1, but sales died instead following that.
I believe in sticking to your guns, so it is in Epic's best interest to double down and keep the games and exclusives coming. Bringing the games people want to play consistently, will win out against people being upset in the long run. The question is whether they have the fortitude to outlast the bad press for what they have been doing.
But how do you know it hasn't resulted in lower sales? That's what's I'm saying. You're telling me that if it launched on Steam or GOG it wouldn't have sold MORE? You think the sales would be exactly the same regardless? I'm willing to bet that it would have sold much more without exclusivity.
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I didn't say it wouldn't sell more with more stores. I compared it to previous BL games. It's had the biggest launch. Being exclusive to EGS did not affect that, and did not result in low sales.
"Being exclusive to EGS did not affect that, and did not result in low sales." You're saying it with this statement right here. I'm asking you, how do you know it didnt affect it getting more sales and setting an even higher bar? Yes it still sold more than BL2, but it certainly wasn't because of EGS exclusivity. The reality is being exclusive to EGS DID cause lower sales than it could have gotten.
It obviously sold less by being exclusive to EGS but the hard truth is that it didn't completely bomb because of EGS which is what the Steam fanboys wanted to happen. Now the goalpost will move and they'll start saying "well initial numbers don't mean anything and it's all about concurrent players over a period of time" but they'll never admit that the average player doesn't care about exclusivity on a free game launcher no matter how much they cry about it. Yes, EGS is crap compared to Steam but the effort is what counts because at a certain point Steam will be forced to compete and change its detrimental policies to benefit developers more which is good for all gamers.
Again, I am *NOT* saying the game wouldn't have sold more. I'm saying EGS exclusivity did not result in low sales compared to previous BL games. Which it didn't, the game outsold all previous BL launches. The potential to sell more is irrelevant to the point. Everything I've said is in relation to previous BL games.
If it was your company and your game would you want to fork over 30% to Valve just to keep the fan boys happy? I wouldn't.
Do you actually believe the game isn't on Steam because of the 30% cut? It's got nothing to do with it, it's all to do with Epic giving the publisher millons of dollars. If it was to do with the 30% cut, then they would have just made it Epic exclusive before Epic even offered them the millions.
There's a narrative by the ones running the show to push that idea onto people and make Valve look like some greedy company when it's being pushed by a company with investors from many greedy companies expecting to make money back. Disney being one of them.
@SegaGamer HusbandandWifeGaming is not interested in logic, and he is probably fine with the nonsense that happened to Shenmue 3. These people will probably accept anything in gaming. It is quite embarrassing. Lol
I guess games should stop releasing on consoles then because that’s the console cut.
Developers are wanting to expand to PC to reach a bigger audience, but now even PC is becoming like consoles. With consoles it's either: Nintendo, Xbox, or PlayStation but if you go wider audience PC, youre falling into the funnel of Windows, Steam, or Epic Games Store. Just how intelligent are game developers? PC is it's own platform with equally as many complications and just as limiting. Today, you might as well play the console exclusive game and at least get in on a fanbase that's millions strong where consumers don't have to make tough choices and spend thousands on a gaming rig, consoles make it simple and easy.
It's a lot worse than that. Windows Store, Steam, Epic Games Store, Uplay, Origin, the new Rockstar Games Launcher, GOG Galaxy (optional), plus there's others as well.
It's up to each publisher and developer to decide what happens. Look at how EA is flying solo with their own storefront Origin but they keep the profits in house.
It's not as bad as on console, because pc gamers arent prevented from playing the because of storefront. Going exclusive just means they may not be able to buy from their favorite store. Closest equivalent to consoles would be when amazon or gamestop get exclusive games. It may be annoying if one prefers the other, but if one isnt so hellbent on staying to one store, or not patronizing another, then nothing prevents them from still playing the game
How is this anything like consoles? It's a single hardware running PC code with different storefronts. You don't have to buy specific hardware for any store. Consoles require specific hardware as well as online paywalls.
LOL it's only a 'mistake' if you're on the other side of the fence.
"Now ruling the PC gamer space, Epic Games Store evokes renditions of greedy practices and shady deals similar to its gaming publisher counterparts." Well that's just a massive lie. Steam/Valve still dominate with more than 90% of PC software sales.
If EPIC had a competent store, and weren't throwing a wrench into the PC gaming space, I would have bought a good number of titles from them, when they had deep discounts to entice new customers. That's not the case, thus they're store isn't on my computer. I buy a lot of games on Steam. I probably buy as much, or more, through Humble and GoG, together.
Never have I ever seen a company's near-monopoly being threatened phrased as "throwing a wrench into this market" by consumers. Epic is far from perfect, yes, but people need to stop acting like Valve are saints.
@ShadowWolf But they are throwing a wrench in the market. You don't see other stores pointing fingers at Steam and paying for timed exclusivity and they are doing just fine. Epic is clearly doing everything they can to disenfranchise Steam/Valve so where do you think all this negative marketing is coming from? I'm willing to bet 90% of it is coming from the pockets of investors who want to see EGS succeed. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition in the market, but Epic is going about it all wrong. Their store is an absolute joke, it's lacking major features that should have been there since launch and is also riddled with security issues and bugs, not to mention this timed exclusivity BS. But instead of putting out a decent storefront that actually competes in terms of features, they're just blasting them with negative PR and trying to make it look like they are some evil monopoly. I have never been one to be loyal to a corporate entity but I will back Steam 100% on this.
@shadow Keep making it a "iTs BeCaUsE yOu LiKe StEaM" situation. You're wrong in doing so, but keep doing it.
Epic exclusivity only makes sense for indies, who struggle for money. Big companies with well known franchises would profit more by having their games available in as many places as possible. If the lower cut from Epic Games was THAT good, game companies would offer exclusivity by themselves, Epic wouldn't need to pay them for it.
Really? It's a false assumption that selling more, always equates to making more profits. The difference in the cut means that for every million copies, they need to sell 200K less copies to make the same profit..or net revenue in this case. If they sell an equal number regardless of platform, then they'd make roughly an extra 8 million in net revenue. Maybe more if they manage to get the 12% cut, instead of the 18% cut. I dunno about you, but if you had a production in the 10's or 100's of millions, that 8 million would seem pretty attractive. As time goes on, you may see more companies going for the lower cut. EGS is still pretty new. Publishers are going to be prudent, and some will wait for more hard data. If the data supports that EGS exclusivity doesn't detrimentally affect the sales to the point they lose money, even if it doesn't sell as much as it could, then they will more likely opt for the option that gives them more for their product. Especially true since the exclusivity doesn't have to be perpetrual, and they can release on those other platforms later. Maximize revenues early when the early adopters will buy it regardless, then release it later when they know that those people will probably wait for it to be cheap anyways.
I can't wait to see how these people react once they stop forcing exclusivity to see that had no effect to pushing people to buy off their store. Everyone's library's are on Steam, giving people the choice they'll go where their games are.