Join us on our own very special Reddit: /r/Linuxers

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

By - | Views: 19,282

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: «9/10»
  Go to:

TheSHEEEP
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. AAA devs regularly negotiate a lower cut with Valve. Which in itself actually proves the cut Valve usually takes is higher than it needs to be.
Indies don't have that kind of power to negotiate with, unfortunately.

There's also this, which strongly favors AAA to begin with:
https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-new-revenue-sharing-favours-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/

Hah interesting, didnt know that. Well that sucks of course. Should definitly be the other way around.
scaine 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Supporter Plus
TimeFreeze
TheSHEEEP
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. AAA devs regularly negotiate a lower cut with Valve. Which in itself actually proves the cut Valve usually takes is higher than it needs to be.
Indies don't have that kind of power to negotiate with, unfortunately.

There's also this, which strongly favors AAA to begin with:
https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-new-revenue-sharing-favours-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/

Hah interesting, didnt know that. Well that sucks of course. Should definitly be the other way around.

It should be, but this is all about money. Steam don't really want to encourage more indies - they want to stop AAA's going elsewhere. Indies definitely get a rough deal with Steam and I don't blame any indie that takes an Epic deal. But I'll happily blacklist any AAA dev/pub that does so.
scaine
TimeFreeze
TheSHEEEP
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. AAA devs regularly negotiate a lower cut with Valve. Which in itself actually proves the cut Valve usually takes is higher than it needs to be.
Indies don't have that kind of power to negotiate with, unfortunately.

There's also this, which strongly favors AAA to begin with:
https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-new-revenue-sharing-favours-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/

Hah interesting, didnt know that. Well that sucks of course. Should definitly be the other way around.

It should be, but this is all about money. Steam don't really want to encourage more indies - they want to stop AAA's going elsewhere. Indies definitely get a rough deal with Steam and I don't blame any indie that takes an Epic deal. But I'll happily blacklist any AAA dev/pub that does so.

Could not agree more. i mean i still wont use/buy anything from Epic but i can understand why Indie devs take the Epic deal. But the AAA devs just want even more money so to the blacklist they go! [Indie devs probably go there also but only and ONLY if they for some reason promised a Steam version and then just swap it with an Epic Version yes i'm looking at [insert any dev from a crowdfunding project].
CatKiller 3 Jun
scaineIt should be, but this is all about money.

It is, but not really for the reasons you're thinking of. A tiny indie developer benefits more than a massive AAA developer does from all the infrastructure that Steam provides. A big multiplat release is going to have their own matchmaking, their own support chain, their own marketing, their own forums, and so on, outside of Steam, so there's less of a value proposition for Valve's cut than is the case for the indie, and supporting a million players in one container is cheaper for Valve than a thousand containers with a thousand players in, so there's scope to lower the rates.
Dunc 3 Jun
Comandante ÑoñardoBut if Feral has the publishing rights for MAC and Linux, they can publish it anyway. Only the Windows version will be Epic Store exclusive.
That crossed my mind too, but I doubt if it's the case. As I understand it, Feral's essentially in the same position as the original developer; the publisher is still Sega.
scaine 3 Jun
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Supporter Plus
CatKiller
scaineIt should be, but this is all about money.

It is, but not really for the reasons you're thinking of. A tiny indie developer benefits more than a massive AAA developer does from all the infrastructure that Steam provides. A big multiplat release is going to have their own matchmaking, their own support chain, their own marketing, their own forums, and so on, outside of Steam, so there's less of a value proposition for Valve's cut than is the case for the indie, and supporting a million players in one container is cheaper for Valve than a thousand containers with a thousand players in, so there's scope to lower the rates.

I don't doubt any of that, but I don't believe that any of it's relevant to Valve's decision to reduce their cut to AAA. They did so, I believe, to prevent those big players jumping ship to Epic. Which was my point (poorly stated) - it's all about money. Specifically, in this case, Valve keeping as much of it as possible.
kuhpunkt 3 Jun
TheSHEEEPOf 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.

If there's no profit, it's hard to innovate.

TheSHEEEPWhich 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

It's not irrelevant.

TheSHEEEPMakes 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.

It's not whataboutism when it's the same exact issue. The head of Ubisoft complained that Valve's cut isn't "modern enough" or whatever he said, while he still pays the same cut to other companies. That's hypocritical.

TheSHEEEPNothing 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.

Yeah and I asked you if you have the numbers - you don't. You suggested 10-20, without knowing whether it would cover costs.

TheSHEEEPBecause 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.

Oh, it's now just another way to make money... got it.

TheSHEEEPAnd 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.

You think devs will say the same thing about Epic in 10 years?

TheSHEEEP
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/

Now you're just outright lying.

Being AAA has nothing to do with it. It just needs to sell well.
x_wing 3 Jun
TheSHEEEP
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/

And also it is worth mention that publishers are allowed to generate keys to sell as retail and that Valve will not see a coin from that (and depending the game you can also consider some revenue that they game from Steam market). But when you do that you also have to take in account all the associated fraud issues.

Anyway, when we have to talk about Epic advantages we always end up talking about publisher revenue advantages but never about enduser store features. So, at some point I'm not sure if I'm talking with people that like to play games or game companies shareholders...
As I said before. If Valve takes only a 5% cut when a game has a Linux version, keeping the current 30% cut if the game is Windows only, We gonna have a lot of AAA games for Linux.
amatai 3 Jun
The 30% is only for game bought on steam. Valve gives dev key generator so they can sell how much keys they want without the need to pay a cut to Valve.
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