Unreal Engine could’ve got us, like, Unreal Tournament. It almost did, in fact, it a little.
Die in eternal fire Epic
… and it still won’t dent Steam’s de-facto monopoly.
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.
Wait, I’m confused. The article is about how Epic won’t take a cut to a point. Surely, you’re not giving money to Epic if you buy the game on EGS?
If my purchase on Epic helps the game reach $1 million in revenue then I am giving money to Epic.
Eventhough I adore GOG, they really need to step up their linux support, which is non-existent
Heroic launcher works well with gog and shows what games are supported.
I agree but heroic has nothing to do with gog…
So you want to give steam exclusive access to your money because epic wants it? Genius move, really. This won’t go badly for you in the next decade.
Yes, because they still allow you to spend your money elsewhere if a new storefront appears on the market. Epic is actively preventing that.
Are they? Interesting word definitions here.
Yes, that’s what exclusive access to games mean. You can’t buy them from other stores because Epic is actively preventing the developers from doing so.
By…signing legal agreements that the developers enter into willingly? We aren’t talking momandpop shops here, these game producers have legal teams.
So we can’t complain about Valve’s 30% cut, then? Because its a legal agreement that game companies willingly enter into, is it not? What about game companies overworking their developers? It’s all dandy because the devs willingly agreed when they enter into the employment?
You’re also forgetting about games that Epic pulled from other stores after buying the company making them. That’s even shittier than releasing games exclusively on Epic.
I mentioned two stores in my comment, what exclusive access to money are you talking about?
100% of $0 is still $0.
I’ll spend my money on platforms that have proven to respect their customers.
What’s epics problem? I only log in to get free games but I think competition should work out better for the consumer
They don’t got a problem. Someone on reddit a while ago pushed for epic=bad so now years later people just parrot the same shit over and over like monkeys.
These people in their minds are “friends” with steam. They gotta stick up for their buddies on the internet.
I don’t think “epic bad”. But right now, I don’t see why I should use their platform when all my stuff is on steam. They should bring either: better experience or better value. Right now they don’t really do either. Sure they give you free games but I have 10x the amount on my platform of choice. I’m not married to steam I just want epic to give me a reason to use them.
Competition is usually always a good thing, but sadly no launcher has ever brought anything new to the table that Steam hasn’t already been doing (they usually just bring headaches).
Epic doesn’t want to compete fairly (by providing a great user experience, etc). They want to compete by paying for exclusives & bribing users with free games. Obviously this hasn’t worked because they are loweri g fees, likely to try to get the growth they just aren’t seeing.
For the consumer multiple platforms sucks. There’s already competition for selling steam keys as well. Epic doesn’t want to pay other platforms for anything fortnite, anything else they do is to justify why they shouldn’t have to pay like every one else.
They could literally just copy steam, add their “we take less of a cut” thing, and be in a good place.
Instead, using their storefront sucks, their customer service sucks, they lack features you’d expect of a major platform, and they’re pretentious dicks about it. Instead of fixing these obvious problems, they’re bribing devs for exclusivity, pumping their marketing with bullshit, and litigating apple over their app store (actually that last one is kinda great). The epic store today would be competition to steam if steam was still as it was 20 years ago when everyone hated steam.
So what does Steam’s revenue share look like in comparison?
Steam takes 30% at first, and there is a discount after tens of millions of dollars in sales.
Steam offers a ton of benefits for game companies through steam, such as the Friends list, reviews, having a way to show live play from the store page, and a bunch of other things. There is a reason that everyone is flocking to steam, and that 30% cut isn’t keeping anyone away.
Plus steam input, remote play, play together, trophies, hell there’s a whole API for you to use to make your game multiplayer and have it integrate with steam friends easily. So much built in for devs lives to be easier.
Just check out steam works. There’s so much for developers
User base and brand loyalty
Nothing about what Valve does but you can’t afford to not be on Steam even though it’s the inferior product
That’s why EOS works with any platform
Steam is, in my opinion, way better for the user (even if it may be worse for the developer).
Epic lacks features that are important to me like reviews, the ability to view your library in a browser, warnings about DRM, Linux support, a hole bunch of features to discover games, a workshop, big picture mode.
Additionally, in my experience at least, their official launcher under Windows is a buggy mess compared to steam.
And the thing is… Because Steam is better for the user, it becomes better from the developer. 70% of your game’s Steam revenue will always be bigger than 100% of your Epic revenue. It’s probably bigger than 300% of your Epic revenue. That’s why Steam doesn’t need to buy exclusives or run loss leaders or try to lock you in with “free!” promos. Epic needs to pay developers up front to get them to not go to Steam, because in every case a dual Steam/whatever-else release is better than a whatever-else release. So Epic needs to pay the indie game studio that made a $10 game a million dollars for timed exclusivity, which allows the studio to not worry about losing their Steam revenue from selling 130,000 copies. Then they release it on Steam later anyway.
If it was as simple as “cutting out middlemen” or using cheaper middlemen, devs would just be selling you exe files. CDN costs wouldn’t come close to 30% of revenue, after all. People like buying games on Steam. People buy games on Steam that are cheaper and DRM-free on GOG or Itch. People buy games on Steam that are free downloads like Dwarf Fortress. People buy games on Steam that are free browser pages like Cookie Clicker. Epic wants people to be invested in their “free!” libraries enough to actually be like “oh I mean I’ve got the Epic account, may as well buy this game here because it’s cheaper or more of my money goes to the devs or because it’s a timed exclusive…” And people simply aren’t doing it.
EGS has reviews as far as I can tell. I still think Steam is better, but this is a welcome move out of them. Competition is a good thing
Edit: downvoted for pointing out that EGS has reviews. Y’all are weird lol
I was talking about written reviews, not just a like/dislike (star) system
The way Epics reviews work are awful, though. They are trying to be really attractive to developers but they aren’t attractive enough to USERS.
For example, you have to be INVITED to review games on Epic. The system is automated and will occasionally ask for a review after you close a game, assuming you’ve been playing long enough. They claim it’s to avoid things like “review bombing”, but that’s a cop-out to shield bad developers/publishers from the repercussions of their actions (like when Denuvo was non-consensually added to Ghostwire Tokyo a year after release).
Implying review bombing is always warranted is as misguided as it gets. Games regularly get review bombed for something as trivial as having a non-white person for a protagonist.
I don’t disagree that’s a problem, but that is not what I said or implied. That’s the reason Steam has other mechanisms for scoring and scaling reviews. There are plenty of valid reasons for “review bombing” that are organic and natural consequences of developer activity: like adding Denuvo a year after release, adding a launxher or login/account requirement after the fact, etc. Making reviews “invite only” is anti-consumer.
How many layoffs does that take? /s
TBH I haven’t seen evidence that layoffs generate capital. It just fudges cost to revenue ratios to emulate quarterly gains in hopes of appeasing shareholders.
The desperation looks good on you Epic
I have to give it to Valve, their marketing team is really good.
Right?! Nobody ever talks about all the kids they got addicted to gambling. Bang up job, there.
Yeah, lmfao, one of my friends literally only wants to play cs2 because of the free weekly items… It seems that games with elements of gambling always do better than those without it
Do they even have one? I thought it’s rare situation when the product speaks for itself.
I assume they mostly just do Steam sale and store organization stuff these days. Maybe they were involved with the SteamDeck but I mostly saw word of mouth for that.
I can’t wait to get more games on my Epic deck, oh wait it was Valve who pioneered an incredible platform that can play AAA games on a handheld running Linux and made compatibility a reality for thousands of games.
They didn’t pioneer it, companies like GPD did. Not shitting in the Steam Deck, love that thing. Just wanting to get the facts straight.
I think it still counts, due to all the work they did on the software side.
Because they have to, because their store is based in bribing developers for artificial exclusivity in an attempt to hurt Valve for proving that Pig Swiney was a moron a decade ago when he said PC gaming was dead.
This is all a vain attempt by a man child to get back at Gabe, and it’s abso fucking lutely a hilarious delight what an abject failure it all is.
Garbage store with no customer services struggles and burns money, because that’s what’s lazy customer fucking cash grabs should do - burn. Fuck epic, fuck Swiney, and fuck you if you defend them.
Care to elaborate further on specific events or even just link some articles for a lazy bones like me?
(I only get free games from epic and then never play them)
Completely unrelated, but is your username a reference to the movie Can’t Hardly Wait?
No just a play on the name amanda
Steam really needs something like this. Even the first 100k would be a great start for boosting indie devs.
Instead they do the opposite and reward the big players.
Steam actually reduces their cut as you hit certain milestones. For your first $10M in sales, they take that standard 30%. Hit the $10M mark, and their cut drops to 25% for sales between $10M and $50M. Push past $50M, and Steam only takes 20%.
I think ideally the first xk should have somethong like 10% since there’s still payment processing fees and such. After that have 30% then go down on huge amount of sales (to keep the big boys happy and on steam)
Why do you want to keep “the big boys” happy?
I mean, if you’re Gabe then I get it. If you have a spare yacht call me, let’s talk.
But if you’re not, then… what’s the reasoning there?
Not me, but i do want steam to stay the main game platform, if the alternative is epic games. That means you want to keep big studios on the platform.
On the other hand the vast majority of the money that valve makes comes from indie games, not big studios.
My go-to is GoG, but I definitely want Steam to lose some market share in favor of literally anybody else. I will worry about moving that extra share towards GoG when the market isn’t a full on monopoly.
But hey, yeah, stop using Steam and go to Gog whenever you can. You heard it here first. DRM-free software should be your first choice.
GOG and Itch are both great services. Epic is run by a psychopath and working hard to create the walled garden they themselves have been railing against. That’s why EGS can go to hell but I’ll gladly buy from the others.
I do not know or care about the personality or intentions of any of the executives in these corporations. Pick your variety of libertarian tech billionaire, I don’t intend to root for any of them.
This is a Godzilla “let them fight” moment where in my ideal scenario none of these people would have this amount of money or control over other people’s work, but since that’s the world we live in, them being in competition benefits me down the line, so I don’t want any one of them to get away with the whole thing.
I definitely want Steam to lose some market share
I want them to have some competition…
Yeah. I mean, same thing.
The point is you ideally want multiple players in the PC market competing with each other on features and approach that are all viable, sustainable and give users and developers a better deal as middlemen.
I don’t want Steam to go away, it’s an insanely good client and a great piece of software. But I don’t want every game having to be on Steam no matter what and only doing GoG or Epic or Xbox if they are being given a deal or for ideological reasons.
I like GoG but they don’t support Linux, they don’t take a smaller cut, and developers are free to submit their games to Steam without DRM.
Valve is the only one in PC gaming to push an alternative operating system to Windows.
EGS, GOG,… all enforce a Windows hegemony. GOG Galaxy isn’t even available on Linux, despite the fact that it’s built on cross platform frameworks that make porting easy. Proton by Valve is open source and GOG Galaxy would be free to integrate it.
Heroic Launcher is a community effort that shows that it would be possible without massive investments. Epic and GOG/CD Project just chose not to.
Reminder that the world’s biggest money makers in PC gaming are not on Steam.
Minecraft isn’t (it’s on Microsoft Store and a stand-alone web store), Fortnite isn’t (it’s EGS exclusive), Roblox isn’t (its own store), League of Legends and Valorant aren’t (Riot Launcher and EGS),…
Yeah.
And that’s a fantastic showcase of the bar you need to hit to not be effectively toiling in the Steam mines. Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam.
It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC. And none of those is even close to having a viable platform for third party releases outside of Epic, which is perhaps the last one standing on that front and currently not managing to get a foothold. And judging by the rabid fanboy backlash anytime they try to do something nice to attract devs, not even finding a path towards one at any point in the future, either.
That’s a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren’t that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.
Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam.
They don’t have to. OK, maybe Microsoft has to because they are the actual monopolist and making the Activision Blizzard franchises available on storefronts other than Microsoft’s own is to keep the watchdogs away.
Also, none of the franchises are exclusive to Steam, so Steam has no monopoly.
It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC.
That sentence makes no sense. Fortnite is exclusive to EGS, therefore it cannot be “significantly bigger than the entire Epic store”.
Steam has no policies that forbid offering games on other stores, Epic has policies that makes certain games timed exclusives to EGS.
What makes EGS unattractive compared to Steam is the simple fact that Epic chooses to most prominently display their own games on EGS. Valve does front page banners, fests, that window that opens with every Steam launch, etc. and goes out of their way to make everything from big launches as well as solo dev indie games discoverable.
Epic has it in their own hands to make EGS more than the Fortnite launcher. They could promote other EGS games inside Fortnite but they don’t. They host concerts inside Fortnite but nothing to promote 3rd party EGS games, for examle.
That’s a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren’t that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.
USD 45 billion overall PC gaming revenue and all of Steam combined is 8.6bn. “And the cash flows to Valve”? Sure…
Naw, each time I buy on gog over steam I end up regretting it for some reason, usually related to modding or portability.
Gogs great, but has limitations. With steam everything works better.
Until it doesnt and your entire game library is done…
For generic SteamWorks integration, there already exists a open source DLL called Goldberg Emulator. If publishers opt for real DRM, the games are not available on GOG anyway.
Also, downloading and backing up the games have to be done by yourself before the storefront goes bust. Distributing GOG games outside of GOG is a copyright violation, unless the copyright holders explicitly allow it.
So, to sum up: You can backup DRM-free Steam games and make them work with little effort.
the vast majority of the money that valve makes comes from indie games, not big studios
This is definitely not the case. Big studios price their games higher and sell more copies. There are only a handful of indie games like Stardew Valley and Terraria that come close to being in the same spot of the bell curve. Most of Valve’s money comes from microtransactions in the longest-running live services and the biggest games of the year.
Ah yeah my bad its the number of sales where indie games win. In terms of money its almost 50/50 tho. People are sick and tired of expensive garbage games and that shows in the drastic changes in revenue from 2023-2024.
Ofcourse if you include in game costs, then it probably changes again.
People are sick and tired of expensive garbage games and that shows in the drastic changes in revenue from 2023-2024.
Be careful not to make the data fit your conclusion. Anecdotally, I’ve observed a similar sentiment, but for one thing, AAA releases have slowed down due to long development times, so there just aren’t that many of them in a given year. For another, we know that, by a wide margin, most time spent gaming is only on a handful of mainstay games that first debuted years ago, like Counter-Strike 2, Grand Theft Auto V, Fortnite, Minecraft, etc. Plenty of those aren’t on Steam, but the same concept applies to the games that top the Steam charts.
From the POV of steam, you want the big releases to happen on your platform and take your cut even if its a bit smaller. In the end people change platforms for the big releases. Its the main reason I haven’t fully switched to GOG yet, it doesn’t have the major releases I want (or gets them late like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2).
You can spread idealism, but I rather stay realistic.
Yeah, but I’m not in the POV of Steam.
I’m in my POV.
You can’t simultaneously go “it is what it is” when Valve gives big games a better deal to secure their position and be mad that Epic gives games exclusivity deals. It just doesn’t follow. Realistically.
If it free, there is an incentive to release quantity and not quality, it could become a spam problem. I am all for having a lower percentage though, but 0 could be a problem.
You think the current cut Steam is taking…
… is preventing shovelware spam?
Have you been on Steam this decade?
But hey, yeah, nobody is advocating a 0% cut for Valve. Epic is doing this because they need to attract developers and most of their money comes from Fortnite anyway, so it’s something they can try.
But Valve has a looot of ground between 0 and 30% and a lot of ways to give back to the developers that built their empire. And I don’t think starting by treating smaller devs as well as they treat major corporations would be a bad start at all.
Cause that would probably get abused for things like money laundering, since Steam is open for everyone who wants to sell a game unlike Epic’s store where you get vetted. You can just set up a shell corp that releases shitty shovelware and buy the game from yourself with steam cards you bought from the store with your dirty cash. And then you’d get all your money back ready to be taxed and laundered.
Couldn’t you just like… sell those stolen gift cards on G2A, Kinguin and such instead? You wouldn’t have the 100 euro posting game fee + needing to have it checked and such.
I’m not talking about stolen gift cards. The goal of money laundering is to move dirty cash from the criminal underworld into lawful society. Selling stolen gift cards on G2A doesn’t help with that. You want to create proof for the tax man that the money you earn comes from a legitimate source. If you sell stolen gift card you don’t have a paper trail for where you have sourced those cards. It’s suspicious. And selling cards on G2A you buy with your dirty cash from a legit store is still suspicious since you still have to proof if the money you used to buy those cards was earned legitimately.
If you buy gift cards with your dirty cash at a store and then pretend to be a customer by buying your own game you have created a money paper trail for the tax man since your earnings will come from Valve with receipts and all and you don’t have to proof where and how your “customers” have bought those gift cards. And then once that money is taxed that money is earned legitimately.
You could buy stolen gift cards from another criminal but good chance stores report to their supplier if a batch of cards is stolen and then it gets reported to Valve. And Valve knows which numbers those are. If they see a game getting bought with cards from the same stolen batches and have almost no other sales there is a chance the game gets flagged automatically by their systems and they probably report it to the authorities.
You have given money laundering via making terrible games a suspicious amount of thought.
I mean, one could argue that this is on Steam to manage, and that the way to manage it shouldn’t be “we’ll just keep 30%”. It was Steam who spent an inordinate amount of effort and terrible half-assed attempts automating game curation so they could have fewer people looking at approving games the way other first parties do. If Valve wants to Uberify game distribution they have an onus on moderation and on protecting the developers using their platform.
But that’s irrelevant because nobody needs them to lower their cut to 0%. 20% would be great. 10% would be fantastic. Flipping the current order of things to give more money back to smaller games and keep more money from bigger games would be more than good enough. Whatever arbitrary bar you think would stop this entirely imaginary scheme they could meet and it’d still be an improvement.
Hell, I have never laundered money, but from what I hear out there 30% may not be enough to put a stop to that. That may be a decent return for some squeaky clean money out of Unreal asset flips. Should Valve set their cut to 50%? You know, in the interest of international security?
That was a serious reach, friend.
It’s not that strange a thing to think about. Steam partners have abused the system before creating a fuckton of games just for achievements, trading cards and emoticons. Also Banana
Which is entirely a result of Steam abandoning any human intervention on their curation system, first by trying to crowdsource it and when that didn’t work just opening the floodgates and implementing the lightest possible moderation, social media-style.
So okay, do they want to avoid exploits? Go back to curating the library. That’s how it used to work, it didn’t need to be an automated, hands-free process.
But if you’re going to let everybody upload to it then you are on the hook for the costs of moderation. It’s not a valid excuse to charge more for the privilege of being slotted against shovelware. It’s not a viable argument at all.
20% is still way too fucking high for little more than just hosting the games.
I dont think the curve would look like this without valves efforts to push linux, so i am a bit forgiving when it comes to them wanting money to do random research and development. So far they have always been making cool stuff with that money.
They’re constantly making cool, free shit for gamers because valve at its core is a company of gamers - they happen to make a shit ton of money because their passion for gaming ended up delivering a superior product, but it’s that passion that keeps them at the top.
Look at remote play together and family sharing - neither of those concepts help valve sell more games… if anything, they reduce the number of games sold (ie, their entire profit model), but they’re great ideas that make sense… so they spent a bunch of the companies time and money developing them.
Epic will forever be garbage as long as it’s only goal is to dick with steam… and it will always fail because they’re treating steam like a greedy corporation when really, it’s just a bunch of passionate gamers building the toys they wish they had when they were kids.
You are joking, right? The customer support alone (at the level at which it stands, which is very high for Steam) is well worth the price, especially for big players.
The hosting part is like the smallest portion of what valve does.
Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. But if they drop their rates they get accused of being anticompetitive and monopolistic.
So if they do something similar like Epic, they’ll go back to using their monopoly over the market to keep competitors down.
Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates.
…those are not different sides? The only reason they can charge such absurd rates is because of their position in the marketplace.
What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn’t increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition? They already have active legal cases against them for monopolizing.
What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging.
When they have absolute monopoly.
Nintendo charges that much because only Nintendo provides Switch software.
Microsoft charges that much because only Microsoft provides Xbox software.
Sony charges that much because only Sony provides Playstation software.
Apple charges that much because only Apple provides iOS software… despite the EU’s best efforts.
Steam and Android act like they’re the only store that matters, for their platform. And it works. Because they are.
Steams competitors are mostly GOG and Epic Games…
Who?
Which is why there’s lawsuits against valve for being a monopoly. They have one, simply because they’re the best and most well organized.
What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging
It’s not what Epic charges.
Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn’t increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition?
No one would care if they were a monopoly and also charged less than everyone else. Pretty much every monopoly discussion revolves almost entirely around their absurd commission rates.
No it doesn’t. Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam to undercut their rates because they can annihilate them in volume? Steam may not answer back at epics first million $ rate cut because Steam kind of needs them as competition.
Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam
Nobody gives a shit what they want. Monopoly enforcement is about consumers.
It’s about consumers by making sure there’s competition.
Epic only does it because they know they’re the underdog. If that were to one day become untrue they would never do anything like this again.
I mean, yeah.
You sorta figured out competition in marketplaces.
Hey, I’m a social democrat. I’m all for intervening in markets, but for commodity entertainment products competition works pretty well, as you just explained.
but no, steam has maintained its 30% cut since its inception do you know the rate publishers like EA demand? 50%. EA is just pissed valve is a better and more reasonable publisher than they are.
so long as EA and other publishers exist and are taking a bigger cut than valve. I’m happy to give valve a pass atm at the better option.
the issue at hand atm is gamers won’t tolerate price increases and inflation has cut into the original profit margin. and so publishers are running around screaming about valve’s 30% cut when they demand a larger cut.
You are mistaking publishing for distribution.
Publishing is not distribution.
smile the whole point of publishers back in the day before the internet was distribution and marketing. no I am not mistaking one for the other.
No, you absolutely are. Publishers will typically pay for retail manufacturing costs (so printing, boxing and shipping), but that’s not the same as digital distribution. Digital distribution doesn’t map to shipping game boxes, it maps to retail.
Which is why games on Steam have deals with publishers, NOT with Valve.
No, I’m not. you’re assuming i am. game developers dont generally have the relationships with distributors. the whole point of a publisher is to handle that relationship + the relationship with marketing avenues.
with digital distribution the role of a publisher is greatly reduced. mostly down to just marketing.
And steam doesn’t do it at all.
One approach is objectively better for the little guys than the other.
Sure, I’m just saying Epic is not any better than Valve in that regard. They’re just in a different position.
One approach is objectively better for the little guys than the other.
I’m a littler guy than any game company, Epic treats me like shit. So I’m not going to use Epic.
They will continue doing it if they need to compete. Capitalism working as intended. Who would’ve thought
Sure, I’m just saying Epic is not any better than Valve in that regard. They’re just in a different position. It wouldn’t make financial sense for Steam to do something like that.
Of course. They’re both just companies
Oh hell yeah. This shit crazy good
Honestly, I completely forgot I had Epic installed on my PC
How are they affording this? It can’t be a sustainable model, right?
Fortnite, and it’s not. The store loses them hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Dont they also get royalties from Unreal Engine?
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.
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.
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.
Eh, I’ve mostly moved over to Godot for actual game making
This is for the store, not the engine.
Steam wins again by doing nothing
