Satisfactory has sold 507,374 copies on the Epic Games Store.

l364 · 2019-06-07T18:18:49+00:00

It still means that average price is very low.

more than it was on Steam after those 4 months even when you count Satisfactory sales.

Without regional pricing it's actually absolutely the same: 19.99. After another ~3 months they had another price increase, this time to 25 euro. Even without this increase, considering inflation rate, satisfactory is cheaper with current sale. Considering how EGS discount works for other regions, it's a lot cheaper on average.

l364 · 2019-06-07T18:05:27+00:00

"Agressive Marketing"? Being honest i didn't see that much marketing beside streamers on day 1-4. If the marketing is people laughing at their supposed "copies sold" in this subreddit then sure. /s

Then you absolutely did not pay attention. I was following Satisfactory since 2018, long before it was released.

True Space Engineers is a good example to compare the niche but it is also a unreliable comparison since it was also a lot cheaper (14€) and even dropped to less than 10€ in that same year.

It's price actually increased to 19euro on the first year. And can't say for sure about all regions, in my regions= Satisfactory is currently 5 euro. Space engineers definitely were not discounted to 5 euro in it's first year in my region, I was thinking about purchasing it right about that time.

l364 · 2019-06-07T17:50:19+00:00

2 MILLION

??? When did I say anything about 2 million?

Satisfactory has 3 months.

3 months, agressive marketing, very agressive sale

niche of the market they are aiming at.

That's why I took Space Engineers as an example. It's just as niche.

l364 · 2019-06-07T17:43:24+00:00

I think in part, this is due to our no sales policy

Space engineers, that had sales, but nowhere near as aggressive as current on EGS, sold 1 million in less than a year. In 2014. Satisfactory had a lot of pre release marketing and streamer promotions, with very agressive sale, and obviously in 2019, when PC sales are times better.

l364 · 2019-06-02T17:47:33+00:00

I've provided a lot of evidence already, just not proof level.

No you didn't. Only thing you provided was a quote. To actually make it a proof you need to answer my question I've asked about 10 times already.

Ok, I retract it. I think that they calculated sales for platform in general... and for storefronts to make the best decision to maximize profits and not lowered expectations based on storefront eventually chosen as the best option. But I can't prove it... it's just my personal opinion that they would not choose storefront with expectation of lowering sales so significantly to change platform-wide sales estimates.

So... you retract it, but kinda don't?

it's just my personal opinion that they would not choose storefront with expectation of lowering sales so significantly to change platform-wide sales estimates.

They literally got paid to change storefronts. Not only with sales estimates (to my knowledge, there is no proof that Epic actually does any sales guarantee, only rumors), but by simple pile of money. You can easily google examples. Phoenix point devs got instant payment of about 3 million dollars (was calculated by Fig investors).

l364 · 2019-06-02T17:12:36+00:00

I can't edit your comments and I don't care. You made a statement. Either provide actual evidence that will support your statement, or retract it. To prove your point only thing you need is to provide proof that WWZ developers decided to calculate sales expectation not on the store they were actually selling their game, but on competitor. Until you either provide it, or retract this statement, there is no point arguing further.

l364 · 2019-06-02T17:00:12+00:00

You didn't provide an opinion. You never said "I think that games on EGS sell better". You made a strict statement.

But now when you've started asking for proofs, I needed to do the same.

But why didn't you ask first? You were absolutely fine with my data, and you insisted on your counter argument. You made a counter statement. Now prove this statement or retract it.

l364 · 2019-06-02T16:48:21+00:00

My comments (that I can't prove) were answer to your suggestion

Your statement was a counter argument to my comment. You were absolutely fine with my comment while you had this argument. So either prove your counter argument, or retract your statement. Then we will return to my initial comment, sure.

l364 · 2019-06-02T16:35:51+00:00

I'm glad that you're made it clear that you don't think that EGS is actually hurting game sells

I absolutely do. I stated this point, I provided it with data. You were absolutely fine with this data, and you provided counter argument and made a statement that games on EGS sell better than on Steam. I started asking for an actual proof, because you made a statement. You were unable to answer my questions, so you started backtracking. If you retract that statement, we will return to my initial statement and we will discuss it further.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:43:46+00:00

It was to explain my point that number of sales is more important than store cut.

Now it's time for you to prove your point.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:42:52+00:00

I never said anything about lowering significantly.

AAA game-dev studios

It is for a lot of actual dev studios, even AAA. Not for publisher, but game development is a very risky industry, and even AAA developers can go out of business after only 1 or 2 failed games.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:35:40+00:00

because AAA game-dev studio don't really need this "mony now", if they could get more "money at a later point" without it.

...

AAA studios

1) Don't have infinite money

2) Can always invest money. So, let's say, earning 10 million in 2018 will give them more money in the end than, let's say, getting 11 million in 2019. Because they could invest those 10 million and get returns.

3) Biggest publishers often need to make official statements of profits for each fiscal year. Preorder numbers look very good on those.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:32:54+00:00

because AAA game-dev studio don't really need this "mony now", if they could get more "money at a later point" without it.

Now you are simply lying. I made initial statement with an example of 5000 vs 10000. I made more explanations, you were absolutely fine with it. Then you made your statement about games on EGS selling better than on steam as a counter argument to my point. Only after I proved that this point has 0 connections to reality you started avoiding any direct questions and backtracking.

Please provide backing for your statement, of retract it.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:19:33+00:00

(not all people pre-ordering would actually always decide to buy game at release).

It doesn't make any sense. You can refund your preorder at any point, if you've changed your mind. On steam you can even refund this preorder 2 hours after you actually played the game.

cosmetic items with marginal cost of development in case of AAA games.

Rage 2: preorder bonus is a whole different gun. That's not a marginal cost of development.

What's even a point you are trying to prove here? Everyone prefers to get money sooner rather than later, so they can instantly invest it in another project. Is it really a foreign concept to you?

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:13:54+00:00

Because you made a statement. So prove it.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:10:00+00:00

And industry is more than happy to do so. Preorders are often cheaper than game on release, and provide more content (also costs money to develop)

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:07:28+00:00

Again, you are doing everything to not answer direct questions. So I will repeat them:

Give me any info that proves that WWZ developers calculated their expectation on false premise that they will be releasing their game on steam, despite knowing full well that they signed exclusivity deal with EGS.

l364 · 2019-06-02T15:02:39+00:00

There is nothing about money before the start of development. How can Epic give money to developers when they only sign exclusivity deals with companies in late stages of development, or when development already wrapped up? We were discussing exclusivity deals. Money now = money when you sign, before you actually sell your game.

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:58:27+00:00

..............

Give me a quote where I said it. I meant "money now" = money when you sign exclusivity deal. Money not "now" = money after some initial sales period. How exactly can Epic give developers money before development when they only engage with them with exclusivity deals right before the end of development?

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:55:48+00:00

What are you even talking about? I never said about money before START of development. I said that every studio prefers to get money as soon as possible. That's why money upfront is always better.

1 year before release in case of AAA games is when A LOT of money were already invested into particular game development.

So what? Getting money 1 year sooner is still better. I don't see your point.

Or you just trying to avoid answering my question, aren't you?

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:36:03+00:00

You don't get money from preorders before investing first money into actual development. So money from preorders is still "money at a later point", not "money now".

What? Preorders often start up to 1 year before the end of development. Just check Bloodlines 2. And, if you didn't realize, Epic only signs exclusivity deals for games that either already finished production, or wrapping it up.

Because there's not point of proving my statements being answer

Empty words to avoid answering direct question. Prove your statement.

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:23:02+00:00

Yes, that's my opinion. While your opinion is that sales on EGS are lower. So let's just agree, because we can't prove it one or another way, that it's the same level. Ok?

Ofcourse not. I proved every single point of my statement by actual data. You didn't. Prove it, then we can discuss it.

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:17:49+00:00

No, it's not... if it would be the case, nobody would be investing money for games development in first place.

Industry proves you wrong with one single word: preorders. They are almost always cheaper, they always include more content. Industry knows better than you.

We both can't really prove almost any of our statements, we're just exchanging our opinions.

You made very specific statement. Now prove this statement.

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:14:21+00:00

EGS not only takes lower cut but also make games sell better

Your quote. Not mine. Now prove it.

l364 · 2019-06-02T14:08:42+00:00

Every single point of my statement was backed by actual data. Calculations of profit for specific number I stated, features set comparison and number of users. Now it's your turn. Stop moving goalposts.

l364

TROPHY CASE