I’ve said this in the past but I think it’s worth restating. I’m amazed that EGS is willing to even front the cost of these free games. Like I would expect some form of arbitrary restriction like requiring periodic actual money purchase to be eligible. They have posted income reports that state the free program just isn’t working. Sure it’s increasing numbers, but that isn’t very helpful when your revenue is still decreasing ontop of the cost of the program. I mean it does help that its a flat cost and not a cost per install for them, but still.
for perspective: my last purchase was void train in super early stages of the game (2021 I think?) and prior to that was satisfactory somewhere around 2018 or 19. Meanwhile I have collected a lot of decent games from the program. And I’m one of the better cases. I have /tons/ of friends who have zero intention of ever actually buying anything on the shop, they only use it as a log in, claim the weekly freebie, log out or play the freebie game. Heck, there are programs that are dedicated exclusivley to log in as you, and claim the weekly freebies so you never even have to log onto the storefront. It isn’t a sustainable model.
I feel like they would be better off forcing an annual payment history check on the platform, something stupid small like “if total paid is > 5$” or something cheap, or even like how steam does it where once you purchase something once everything unlocks. From a financial/business mindset, I don’t get their intent on the current program. It only encourages people to grab games and never actually spend money on the sinkhole.
I said this when they first started the free game thing: Instead of giving games away they should subsidize their prices in certain regions to get loads of customers in poorer countries. If they built a massive community around the world the rest of us would be incentivize to participate to play with our friends around the world and we would happily spend money on the platform that made our friends happy.
That would cause compliance issues on steam though publisher wise. They would need the title to be off steam since one of steams publisher terms is that the sale price of an item must be at least equal to the lowest price available on other platforms. Meaning that if you have a deal like described there, steam would be the higher price and it would violate their publisher terms.
edit: looking into this it looks like it might only be for steam keys, so actually they may be in the clear here.
Okay that makes a bit of sense. I said what I said was from when they announced free games on epic the consensus was that it was anti-competitive business practice so I was trying to find a middle ground. But if steam is going to be anti competitive too I am not going to care what their competition do.
I wonder why they can sell games for $0 tho because you go through the process of a checkout, you don’t simply redeem a code or something.
yea looking into it, the steamworks policy doesn’t mention price parity outside of product keys via steam being sold on other storefronts, being said it does look like steam has submitted to the courts evidence of them communicating via email threatening studios that if they actually went through with it, that steam would just choose not to sell their game at all, this was uncovered during deposition during the Wolfire & Dark Catt’s U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Valve. They went on record admitting to the email and explaining that the steam key page was meant to be for all products as a whole. It sounds like it’s a situation where on paper they have it one way, but in practice it’s meant to be the other.
I’ve said this in the past but I think it’s worth restating. I’m amazed that EGS is willing to even front the cost of these free games. Like I would expect some form of arbitrary restriction like requiring periodic actual money purchase to be eligible. They have posted income reports that state the free program just isn’t working. Sure it’s increasing numbers, but that isn’t very helpful when your revenue is still decreasing ontop of the cost of the program. I mean it does help that its a flat cost and not a cost per install for them, but still.
for perspective: my last purchase was void train in super early stages of the game (2021 I think?) and prior to that was satisfactory somewhere around 2018 or 19. Meanwhile I have collected a lot of decent games from the program. And I’m one of the better cases. I have /tons/ of friends who have zero intention of ever actually buying anything on the shop, they only use it as a log in, claim the weekly freebie, log out or play the freebie game. Heck, there are programs that are dedicated exclusivley to log in as you, and claim the weekly freebies so you never even have to log onto the storefront. It isn’t a sustainable model.
I feel like they would be better off forcing an annual payment history check on the platform, something stupid small like “if total paid is > 5$” or something cheap, or even like how steam does it where once you purchase something once everything unlocks. From a financial/business mindset, I don’t get their intent on the current program. It only encourages people to grab games and never actually spend money on the sinkhole.
I said this when they first started the free game thing: Instead of giving games away they should subsidize their prices in certain regions to get loads of customers in poorer countries. If they built a massive community around the world the rest of us would be incentivize to participate to play with our friends around the world and we would happily spend money on the platform that made our friends happy.
That would cause compliance issues on steam though publisher wise. They would need the title to be off steam since one of steams publisher terms is that the sale price of an item must be at least equal to the lowest price available on other platforms. Meaning that if you have a deal like described there, steam would be the higher price and it would violate their publisher terms.edit: looking into this it looks like it might only be for steam keys, so actually they may be in the clear here.
Okay that makes a bit of sense. I said what I said was from when they announced free games on epic the consensus was that it was anti-competitive business practice so I was trying to find a middle ground. But if steam is going to be anti competitive too I am not going to care what their competition do.
I wonder why they can sell games for $0 tho because you go through the process of a checkout, you don’t simply redeem a code or something.
yea looking into it, the steamworks policy doesn’t mention price parity outside of product keys via steam being sold on other storefronts, being said it does look like steam has submitted to the courts evidence of them communicating via email threatening studios that if they actually went through with it, that steam would just choose not to sell their game at all, this was uncovered during deposition during the Wolfire & Dark Catt’s U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Valve. They went on record admitting to the email and explaining that the steam key page was meant to be for all products as a whole. It sounds like it’s a situation where on paper they have it one way, but in practice it’s meant to be the other.