you are not logged in

Ubisoft Shift The Division 2 From Steam To The Epic Games Store

Blimey. Ubisoft have announced that The Division 2 will no longer be available for purchase on Steam and will be moving to the Epic Games Store instead. Those who have pre-ordered the game on Steam will still get their copy but new customers must go to Epic or purchase from Ubisoft’s own digital store where pre-orders are already up.

“Epic continues to disrupt the video game industry, and their third party digital distribution model is the latest example, and something Ubisoft wants to support,” said Ubisoft’s VP of partnerships, Chris Early.

Ubisoft will also team up with Epic for “additional select titles” in the future and will be working with them to incorporate Uplay in to the Epic ecosystem.

The Division 2 is the first triple-A game to move from Steam to Epic, will other publishers follow suit?

Source: Press release

  1. Andrewww
    Since: Jan 2010

    Competition is always a good thing, and Valve, Apple and others have ripped developers off for too long already.
    Well done, Ubisoft.

    Comment posted on 09/01/2019 at 20:35.
    • MrYd
      Since: Mar 2011

      How does something being available in fewer places count as competition and a good thing?

      Proper competition would be if it was available everywhere.

      And have developers really been ripped off? The 70% they get from Valve is a massive increase on what they’d be getting from putting the game on a disc and selling it that way.

      I guess the cost of the bandwidth to deliver the games has come down since Steam started, but the size of the games has gone up as well, so that could cancel that out.

      Add up the cost of delivering the many gigabytes of game, plus all the updates, and the fees for handling payments, and publicising the game to millions of potential customers, and some profit to Valve (because why should they do it for free?), and 30% isn’t entirely unreasonable. Epic are probably not doing it for the money if they’re only charging 12%.

      Apple on the other hand are clearly ripping people off in some cases. Charging that 30% just for handling payments and nothing else? Things like Netflix, which I think was because they forced them to give the option of paying in-app and taking their massive cut.

      Comment posted on 09/01/2019 at 22:34.
      • gazzagb
        Master of speling mitakse
        Since: Feb 2009

        I understand your point about it being less competitive in terms of places you can buy it, but I think this is good in that it will force Valve to up their game. I guess the ideal situation would be that it appears on both storefronts, but is cheaper on Epic’s.

        Comment posted on 10/01/2019 at 13:27.
      • MrYd
        Since: Mar 2011

        How much can valve “up their game” though? Epic have got billions from Fortnite they can use to cover their costs and only charge 12%. They’re either losing money or at best not making any from their new store.

        It all just seems to me like some developers have got greedy, and Epic are using all that Fortnite money to try and wipe out the competition. What would happen if everyone moved away from Steam and Valve suddenly lost all their business and went tits up? The idea of Steam disappearing should be worrying for everyone. (That may be a very unlikely outcome though)

        Comment posted on 10/01/2019 at 14:34.
      • Andrewww
        Since: Jan 2010

        That’s the point, we don’t have proper competition. Given the dominance of Valve in the digital distribution of games, it is important to build up other platforms first. And this has to mean games not being available on Steam, otherwise the mass of PC gamer sheep won’t go shopping elsewhere.

        Although privately owned and the matter not being as transparent, I think we can assume Valve making ****loads of money off other game developers work. And why they should be entitled to grab as much a percentage as non-digital channels, which have been dead a long time for PC gaming anyway, is beyond me. I don’t think you need to worry about ‘poor’ Valve and billionaire Newell (according to some sources being among the top 100 richest people in the US) just yet.

        In a world declining towards massively reduced choices in all areas of technology and walled gardens everywhere, I consider it important to stand up against all sorts of these (near) monopolies. Whether it’s evil Google dominating the mobile OS space (mainly), browsers, online search, etc., or those few others, like Amazon, Facebook, etc., too much market power in too few hands is always bad.

        Valve just announced some minor improvements, and it already shows the effect of more competiton. But that’s still too little, a lot more would be better to keep developers and the games sector thriving.

        Comment posted on 10/01/2019 at 20:46.
      • MrYd
        Since: Mar 2011

        If you want to go down the “monopolies are bad” route, that’s a whole other argument.

        And they’re not particularly good or bad. At least, not for their customers.

        Would it be better if Google didn’t have such a huge chunk of the mobile OS market? Apple is big enough that it probably doesn’t count as a monopoly, but maybe we need half a dozen extra players? Which then limits the amount of software available for each one if they’re sufficiently different. And probably costs the consumers more in the end.

        But I’m sure it’d be great for anyone wanting to make lots of money competing with Google.

        Same thing here. No real benefit to PC gamers of having to use yet another store. But great for Epic and any big company like Ubisoft that jumps on board.

        Monopolies aren’t always bad. And competition isn’t always a good thing. Look at what’s happened since Netflix became so popular. Now everyone wants a slice of that particular pie and it’ll end up with content spread across a dozen different services. And the number of people saying “Sod this, I’ll just download it from somewhere else for free” will increase rapidly. Looks like it already is.

        Comment posted on 10/01/2019 at 22:12.
      • Andrewww
        Since: Jan 2010

        Yeah, dictatorships are not always bad either. But overwhelmingly often they are.
        You read those interviews with developers in dread of the power of Steam, which they’re fully depending on? It doesn’t sound good, and alternatives with a sufficient reach are important for them.
        Do you really think Steam experiencing some pressure to improve the deal for developers is a bad thing?

        Especially for PC gaming, most of your arguments don’t apply, as you can easily use different shops on your given hardware, contrary to the mobile or console market. If setting up a second profile, and the need to type in your credit card information once more, while comfortably sitting in you armchair, is to strenuous for you, you have my sympathy. ;-)

        Comment posted on 12/01/2019 at 09:54.
  2. WaxBull
    Since: Apr 2015

    I totally acknowledge that PC gaming is on a different level with better visuals (potentially) and mods etc. But the fragmentation of game distribution has always put me off. The PS4 and Switch are just so easy to use that the extra pixels and frame rate the PC can muster just isn’t worth the hassle. Maybe ignorance is bliss though

    Comment posted on 10/01/2019 at 00:55.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.