Those are terminologies corporations care about. But, for real life use there is a difference between a product that can be remotely taken away and products that can’t. Otherwise could be argued there is no difference between a pirated copy of Red Dead Redemption 2 and a legit one, which there is once you try to play offline.
Especially competition that actually delivers something unique a segment of the population wants as opposed to simply existing. Their DRM free stance and standalone installers are a pro consumer move giving control back to the consumer once they download the files.
I’ve enjoyed how I can still play the games I first got on my PC were increased resolution and fps by just going to the settings instead of begging for devs to push an update. Also not being rendered unplayable on new hardware like on my older consoles. For longevity my PC games have aged really nicely compared to the games I got for consoles over the generations.
On July 27th (Saturday) I uploaded a new trailer announcing the Steam launch date. On July 30th (Tuesday) I was contacted by the Epic Store, proposing that I enter into an exclusivity agreement with them instead of releasing DARQ on Steam. They made it clear that releasing DARQ non-exclusively is not an option. I rejected their offer before we had a chance to talk about money.
…
It was important to me to give players what they wanted: options. A lot of people requested that DARQ be made available on GOG. I was happy to work with GOG to bring the game to their platform. I wish the Epic Store would allow indie games to be sold there non-exclusively, as they do with larger, still unreleased games (Cyberpunk 2077), so players can enjoy what they want: a choice.
If the point of cuts is given then business viability is quite important. Especially when it raises questions of whether GOG could sustain a lower cut. Those options you provided like Microsoft and Epic are multibillion dollar corporations capable of burning through money endlessly.
That’s not what the conversation was about. It was about whether the business model is actually viable.
If the business of that section is turning a profit it lends more support as opposed to being seen as a side project that doesn’t need to turn a profit. Which is why I included GOG into the mix, since Microsoft and Epic are huge companies with alternative revenue streams.
Loss leaders that lead to buying other things that lead to overall profitability for that section of the business.
This entire division is operating at a loss. Point isn’t that it is unusual or underhanded. It’s that because of the way the division is currently run it is not a business model to point to as being sustainable.
When I see sales of Playstation games on PC the numbers are very underwhelming compared to other big third party titles. In contrast helldivers 2 got insane numbers when it launched simultaneously.
I don’t think launch hype sales can be overlooked and how much may potentially be lost. If people are willing to wait then by the time game is available hype is less and it’s more likely for people to move on or wait for even steeper sales.
They give out free samples though once a week to try to get people to buy their food. People prefer the other kebab store down the block though when it comes to spending on meals.
Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it’s not an business model to point to, since it’s subsidized by unreal and fortnite.
Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn’t be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.
Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.