You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page!

Total War Saga: TROY is now a 12 month Epic Games Store exclusive

By - | Views: 19,283

Total War Saga: TROY, a game that was confirmed to be coming to Linux, is now going to start life as an Epic Games Store exclusive for the first year.

For the Linux version, this would mean a total delay because Epic have no plans to support Linux on their store officially. Creative Assembly announced it will release on EGS in August and be free for 24 hours, with Steam to follow a year later. Creative Assembly mentioned they have "no plans" for future games to be exclusives.

Linux was due to get it "shortly after Windows" originally but now it's entirely unclear. Feral Interactive, the company who work with Creative Assembly to port various titles to Linux and macOS were the company doing Total War Saga: TROY. I spoke to them today but they simply mentioned they have "nothing we can share regarding A Total War Saga: TROY on macOS or Linux".

If / when we hear more about about the Linux version, we will let you know.

YouTube Thumbnail
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Accept Cookies & Show   Direct Link
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
9 Likes, Who?
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG, Humble Store and Paradox Interactive. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
97 comments
Page: «8/10»
  Go to:

TheSHEEEP 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
kuhpunkt
TheSHEEEP
kuhpunktAnd how low should they go?
10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

The problem is that at the basic level (which is what most developers actually use), they really just host their game and offer the community service with it - but they don't really have any work with it that would justify the high share for developers.

How do you know that 10%-20% is fair? Do you have the numbers? gog uses 20% to pay the bills to run the service and the other 10% as actual profit.
I have been working on the backend side of many web services for many years. I know about the cost of hosting huge amounts of data with loads of traffic, web and application development pretty well.
You can roughly extrapolate what income Valve gets from what little data they give us (which is certainly not nearly all the data or income they make, which non-publicly-traded company does that, right?) combined with some average gamer spendings per time period. And if Valve aren't running an entire country, there simply isn't a way they really need that 30% share.

The 10-15% Epic takes (forgot the exact number) is much closer to the real cost of a service (+ profit) and I don't see Epic ever raising that cut to more than 20%. Except if there suddenly was a giant increase in hosting cost.

GOG can claim those numbers (do they, actually?). I don't believe it one bit, as I just know a bit more about the backend side of things and its cost.
And even if that were true. One third profit margin? Holy shit, that's already some incredibly good margin. Only very few things have such a margin.
Which is exactly my point, you don't need a one third profit margin to run a successful business, and the real number is likely even higher than that.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 6:28 am UTC
kuhpunkt 3 Jun
TheSHEEEP
kuhpunkt
TheSHEEEP
kuhpunktAnd how low should they go?
10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

The problem is that at the basic level (which is what most developers actually use), they really just host their game and offer the community service with it - but they don't really have any work with it that would justify the high share for developers.

How do you know that 10%-20% is fair? Do you have the numbers? gog uses 20% to pay the bills to run the service and the other 10% as actual profit.
I have been working on the backend side of many web services for many years. I know about the cost of hosting huge amounts of data with loads of traffic, web and application development pretty well.
You can roughly extrapolate what income Valve gets from what little data they give us (which is certainly not nearly all the data or income they make, which non-publicly-traded company does that, right?) combined with some average gamer spendings per time period. And if Valve aren't running an entire country, there simply isn't a way they really need that 30% share.

The 10-15% Epic takes (forgot the exact number) is much closer to the real cost of a service (+ profit) and I don't see Epic ever raising that cut to more than 20%. Except if there suddenly was a giant increase in hosting cost.

GOG can claim those numbers (do they, actually?). I don't believe it one bit, as I just know a bit more about the backend side of things and its cost.

Epic at the moment takes 12%. Do you honestly think they make profit with that, when the payment methods alone can cost more? And you think 10% is fair... Epic is losing money to get into the market. 30% is the standard everywhere and I have yet to see developers complain about MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple etc. - and I don't think they offer as much as Valve does - and when they do, they charge for their service.

And yes, gog said that. I saw a documentary about them.
TheSHEEEP 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
kuhpunktEpic at the moment takes 12%. Do you honestly think they make profit with that, when the payment methods alone can cost more?
Yes, I do. Because I actually work in the same field (not exactly gaming storefront, but hosting and payments costs are hosting and payment costs, no matter what exactly the servers do and which goods are sold) and know the costs. What exactly was your qualification here, other than "I saw it on TV"?

Not a huge profit margin, mind you, it might be only covering their expenses. And I do expect them to raise it somewhat, as I wrote above.

kuhpunktAnd you think 10% is fair... Epic is losing money to get into the market.
Yes, they are. Because of their exclusivity deals. Not because of their cut.
Also, I said 10-20%, don't put words in my mouth just to try to make a point.

kuhpunkt30% is the standard everywhere and I have yet to see developers complain about MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple etc. - and I don't think they offer as much as Valve does - and when they do, they charge for their service.
You don't see anyone complain because complaining could make you enemies you don't want to have. Also, it would be entirely pointless. What are devs gonna do, not publish on PS4 because they don't like the cut?

Do you honestly think 30% would have become the standard if there wasn't a fat profit margin in it?
Capitalism, baby!

Only on PC, there is now the situation that someone comes in with a lower cut and exclusivity deals and all that is shaking up some rusty structures.
It will be interesting to see where it leads. For developers, I think this is all-in-all a very positive development. And as a developer - even if not games, yet - that is my perspective.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 6:52 am UTC
kuhpunkt 3 Jun
TheSHEEEPYes, I do. Because I actually work in the same field (not exactly gaming storefront, but hosting and payments costs are hosting and payment costs, no matter what exactly the servers do and which goods are sold) and know the costs. What exactly was your qualification here, other than "I saw it on TV"?

I saw devs say it.

TheSHEEEPNot a huge profit margin, mind you, it might be only covering their expenses. And I do expect them to raise it somewhat, as I wrote above.

And covering your expenses is good enough?

TheSHEEEPYes, they are. Because of their exclusivity deals. Not because of their cut.
Also, I said 10-20%, don't put words in my mouth just to try to make a point.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but when transfer fees can be up to 15%, it's not covering costs. Sweeney himself once said it's not sustainable in certain areas. And they lose money with their sales, too.

TheSHEEEPYou don't see anyone complain because complaining could make you enemies you don't want to have. Also, it would be entirely pointless. What are devs gonna do, not publish on PS4 because they don't like the cut?

And that makes it less hypocritical?

TheSHEEEPDo you honestly think 30% would have become the standard if there wasn't a fat profit margin in it?
Capitalism, baby!

I'm not sure who started with the 30%, but once upon a time it was a dream for developers/publishers to get 70%. And what's so bad about them making profit? I don't think it's exploitative.

Also you didn't address the monthly fees for XBOX Live etc. that you don't have on PC.


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 3 June 2020 at 7:31 am UTC
kuhpunkt 3 Jun
TheSHEEEPI've seen that argument a few times, and frankly, it is a myth.
Ever since Valve opened the floodgates and accepted every piece of garbage game on their platform without any moderation whatsoever, the number of games coming out is so huge that a developer gains pretty much nothing from the fact that they are on Steam. This is especially true for indie developers.
Valve doesn't "present" a damn thing, users have to actively wade through the masses of unmoderated games.

Tell how awesome being on Steam alone is to all the developers who didn't do their due diligence, didn't do any marketing, and as a result barely sell anything on Steam.
And if you have to do the marketing routine anyway, what exactly is so great about being "presented" on Steam, again?

What does that have to do with anything? There is too much of everything. Moderation doesn't change that. You won't notice the trash anyway, but do you complain about spotify and bandcamp, too? Everybody can upload their stuff there. There's a billion musicians. Not all of them can break through.
Uncleivan 3 Jun
Any dev taking the epic deal goes into my blacklist. And im not buying this game in one year on Steam; i simply dont like devs that go into epic.

Fuck epic
Fuck tim sweeney
Fuck Microsoft
TheSHEEEP 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
kuhpunkt
TheSHEEEPNot a huge profit margin, mind you, it might be only covering their expenses. And I do expect them to raise it somewhat, as I wrote above.

And covering your expenses is good enough?
Of course it is, while you are growing. Just look at Spotify, etc. I'm not even sure they make a profit at this point, but they sure as hell didn't initially.

kuhpunktbut when transfer fees can be up to 15%, it's not covering costs. Sweeney himself once said it's not sustainable in certain areas. And they lose money with their sales, too.
Which is irrelevant as Epic forwards those fees to the users, encouraging them not to use services with absurdly large transfer fees.
https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/epic-games-store-faq?lang=en-US

kuhpunkt
TheSHEEEPYou don't see anyone complain because complaining could make you enemies you don't want to have. Also, it would be entirely pointless. What are devs gonna do, not publish on PS4 because they don't like the cut?

And that makes it less hypocritical?
Makes what less hypocritical?
Saying that Steam's cut is way larger than it needs to be? Nothing hypocritical about it, that's just the truth.
Pointing at others doing the same (or worse) is whataboutism and adds no valid points to any discussion.

kuhpunktI'm not sure who started with the 30%, but once upon a time it was a dream for developers/publishers to get 70%. And what's so bad about them making profit? I don't think it's exploitative.
Nothing bad about it, I'm just saying that it is better for developers if that cut was lower and that the cut can absolutely be lowered while storefronts would still make a profit.

kuhpunktAlso you didn't address the monthly fees for XBOX Live etc. that you don't have on PC.
Because they have nothing to do with anything discussed here. It's just another way for Sony, etc. to make more money to allow them to heavily subsidize their consoles to sell them at a lower price than what would otherwise make sense.
TheSHEEEP 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
kuhpunkt
TheSHEEEPI've seen that argument a few times, and frankly, it is a myth.
Ever since Valve opened the floodgates and accepted every piece of garbage game on their platform without any moderation whatsoever, the number of games coming out is so huge that a developer gains pretty much nothing from the fact that they are on Steam. This is especially true for indie developers.
Valve doesn't "present" a damn thing, users have to actively wade through the masses of unmoderated games.

Tell how awesome being on Steam alone is to all the developers who didn't do their due diligence, didn't do any marketing, and as a result barely sell anything on Steam.
And if you have to do the marketing routine anyway, what exactly is so great about being "presented" on Steam, again?

What does that have to do with anything? There is too much of everything. Moderation doesn't change that. You won't notice the trash anyway, but do you complain about spotify and bandcamp, too? Everybody can upload their stuff there. There's a billion musicians. Not all of them can break through.
What that has to do with anything is that you were trying to make the point that being on Steam alone would somehow be a good thing for a developer. It is a necessary thing, or at least it used to be, but developers don't gain anything from the mere fact.
Because of the reasons I outlined. Just like simply being on Spotify doesn't do anything for musicians.

And moderation makes a lot of difference, especially strong moderation. There used to be a time when you'd actually notice an interesting new release on Steam. Now there are so many of them that you'd basically have to go through the list every day. Who wants to do that?
On GOG and EGS, there are way fewer new releases per day (sometimes, there might not even be one in a day!), so those do get noticed simply by the fact that they got released.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 10:12 am UTC
Its funny how no one ever said anything about the 30% cut before Epic came with its Store. And now Steam and every other Platform/Store is the bad guy? Personally i think 30% is perfectly fine for AAA devs. I however think that Steam [and other Stores] could lower that Cut for Indie devs.

And personally i dont care how much Free Games Epic throws out for the Users weekly. Or now with TROY free for the first 24H. I never used the Epic Store and i will never use it. I will stay with Steam/GoG/Itch [and my Consoles].
TheSHEEEP 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
TimeFreezePersonally i think 30% is perfectly fine for AAA devs. I however think that Steam [and other Stores] could lower that Cut for Indie devs.
Funny enough, it is actually the other way around.

Edit:
There's this, which strongly favors AAA to begin with, I just remembered it as AAA devs getting a better cut to begin with (not that the end result is that much different):
https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-new-revenue-sharing-favours-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 10:23 am UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on Patreon, Liberapay or Paypal. We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!

You need to Register and Login to comment, submit articles and more.


Or login with...

Livestreams & Videos
Community Livestreams