• expired

[PC] (Pre Order) Borderlands 3 $48 + Delivery (Free with Prime / $49 Spend) @ Amazon AU

1450

The amazon price match is here, even though harvey norman is out of stock

This item will be released on September 13, 2019.

Note: This game activates on the Epic Games platform. Steam release expected early 2020.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • +2 votes

    nice with cashback as well

  • +2 votes

    Just what I was hoping for. Thanks OP.

  • +1 vote

    Thanks Harvey.

  • +13 votes

    Spent too much on parts now can't afford games..

    • +12 votes

      And spend too less on parts then cannot run games :D

  • +2 votes

    Nice post OP.. You are fast :)

  •  

    Hell yes, thank you Amazon :D

  •  

    Nice

  • +1 vote

    I'm guessing this redeems on Epic Store?

    • +3 votes

      yes

  •  

    Is this attached to any digital platform (e.g. Epic):?

    The bottom of the listing says " PC Edition is a code in box "

    • +4 votes

      It's a 6 month exclusive on EGS then it's on Steam. So the code is EGS.

  • +1 vote

    Will probably be cheaper than this in 6 months and on steam, screw epic.

    Upvote for Amazon price match though

    • +15 votes

      Doubt it. Steam is a commodity and will absolutely be full price + australian tax on Steam.

      You can see this logic applying to any other games that have their own launcher but launch on steam too. Launcher version will always have cheaper keys than Steam keys.

    •  

      The publisher is 2K, they love the Australian tax for games.

  • +8 votes

    don't really want to support Harvey or Epic, both are anti-consumer.

    • -4 votes

      How is Epic anti-consumer, compared to other platforms that is? Considering other platforms have exclusive games too.

      • +10 votes

        They pay to have other games taken off other platforms after they're released.

        That's pretty anti-consumer.

        • -4 votes

          What does it matter if an exclusive is paid for before release or afterwards? I don't like timed exclusives, but this is what other major platforms have done.

          Games have left platforms like GoG.com and ended up on Steam.

          We've had platforms remove games to provide only the updated versions with a significant bump in $.

          UPlay, Origins and Steam force their platform onto people buying their games.

          • +8 votes

            @FabMan: Because it puts at risk a potential lack of support of a game on one platform.

            For instance, we know Rocket League is likely to be removed from Steam at some point in the near future, but how long will they support it on Steam before they stop in favour of their own platform?

            • -1 vote

              @DogGunn: Yeah, the server stuff is frustrating, especially games that are only a couple of years old and sell loot boxes.

              If the servers stop, are people going to blame the publishers (Psyonix) as well though?

              • +4 votes

                @FabMan: They've publicly stated that support will continue for those who've already purchased from Steam. Epic are no more deserving of your hatred than Valve are.

                •  

                  @TheGoodPart: But people will still keep moaning about anti-consumerism when more competition is usually considered beneficial for consumers.

                  • +8 votes

                    @FabMan:

                    But people will still keep moaning about anti-consumerism when more competition is usually considered beneficial for consumers.

                    Epic buying exclusives is NOT increasing competition. It’s literally anti-consumerism in a nutshell. How do people not see this??

                    • +1 vote

                      @Hybroid: Is Epic only selling games exclusive to Epic store? No.

                      Does Steam have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does GoG have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does Origin have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does Uplay have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does PlayStation have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does XBox have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does Nintendo eShop have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does Play Store have exclusives? Yes.
                      Does App Store have exclusives? Yes.

                      Do other platforms have timed exclusives? Yes.
                      Is Epic store competition to other platforms? Yes.
                      I love Mario Kart, but it is only for Nintendo. I love Horizon: Zero Dawn, but it is only for PlayStation. I love Forza, but it is only from XBox (yes on Windows but Microsoft Store only).

                      So why is Epic different? They've pushed harder on exclusives than Steam, but not harder than PlayStation, Nintendo or XBox.

                      •  

                        @FabMan: What games are steam exclusive? And don't go listing games that are only on steam because the publisher has not made it available anywhere else, that is the publisher's choice steam has not forced their hand or offered money for them to be exclusive. Also leave out any Valve games because it's their own platform why would they make their games available elsewhere.

                        •  

                          @Hintswen: Anything else I should restrict my choices too?

                          Publishers not releasing a game on another platform, or taking money to not release it on another platform are both publishers choices. They are not pressed into those choices by threats. We are also not privy to negotiations between Steam and large publishers like SEGA, so we cannot always know the reasons.

                          Ubisoft has games available on other platforms, so does EA, so does Bethesda, so Valve can too.

                          Why is one of my favourite series Total War only on Steam? Actually the reasons don't matter, it is exclusive to Steam for whatever reason. I remember people complaining like mad back when Total War was moving to Steam, Total War fans hated Steam. Now look, their fans are cheering that it is staying on Steam!

                          -Edit-
                          Microsoft stole Halo back in the day, any XBox fans who are hating on Epic store right now refuse to play Halo?

                          •  

                            @FabMan: I think my restrictions are pretty normal. The difference between a publisher deciding not to release a game elsewhere and a game being an epic exclusive is that Steam isn't paying publishers to keep the games off other platforms. Steam is doing absolutely nothing to restrict publishers from releasing games anywhere else.

                            I never said Valve can't release their games on other platforms but what incentive do they have for doing so? Unlike the other publishers they already have the users on their platform so why release their games somewhere where they won't get all the money from the sales?

                            The Total War is not even steam exclusive, sure it needs steam to run but you can purchase it from many different places. I don't know why it requires steam to run as I don't play it but it could use steam for matchmaking or DRM capabilities, both things the developer is free to switch to alternatives of because valve doesn't pay them to keep using their services.

                            • -2 votes

                              @Hintswen: Okay Hinstwen, I think there is some real problems with your arguement.

                              1) "Steam is doing absolutely nothing to restrict publishers from releasing games anywhere else."

                              How do you know this? In fact, I reckon that is absolutely untrue. Steam takes 30% of games sold on its platform, and I'm willing to bet, larger publishers have negotiated Steam to reduce their take and to have sales on their front page. Neither of us know, but this is how business typically operate.

                              2) "what incentive do they have for doing so?"

                              Right, now we are getting to it. Why should Epic release games on Steam when they have the Epic Store? Why doesn't Valve release Half-Life on GoG.com? I mean GoG is a platform built up on releasing old games. Steam is bringing in a lot of money, Steam takes 30% of a game sold, that is a lot of money, they sell it for $89 and they take $26.70 for it.

                              Why wouldn't other publishers want that $26.70 for themselves? EA created Origin, like Valve created Steam. Ubisoft created Uplay, like Valve created Steam. Now Epic have created the Epic Store, like Valve created Steam. This is so they can keep their 30%, except Epic are charging developers 12%, significantly better for publishers. This is great competition to Steam for publishers. In 2018, Steam's revenue was 4.3 billion US dollars, just for selling games, why wouldn't large publishers want some of that?

                              3) "sure it needs steam to run but you can purchase it from many different places"

                              This hurt to read. So Mario Odyssey isn't an exclusive to the Switch because you can buy it in EB Games, or JB Hi-Fi? Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't a PlayStation exclusive because you can buy it from Amazon and OzGameShop?

                              Got some news for you on this, Epic Store has a Redeem your product section too. So you can buy games from alternative places, just like Steam. That includes retail shops and places like G2A.

                              • -2 votes

                                @FabMan: lol why are you comparing buying digital goods to physical products? your entire argument is all over the place. do you own stock in epic?

                                Steam offers significantly more for the 30% than EGS does so comparing those two storefronts Steam obviously earns their cut.

                                Let me know when EGS stays on target with their roadmap. Nice shopping cart man! Hard to implement!

                                • -3 votes

                                  @Kozhutki: You don't have a valid point and you are laughing as if you think you do. Please do some basic internet searching before you ramble again, G2A is a digital store.

                                  Take a look at DIGITAL stores selling Metro Exodus that is on Epic, exactly the thing you were talking about and failed to realise:
                                  https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1165&bi...

                                  Here is Borderlands 3 being sold on digital stores:
                                  https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1165&bi...

                                  Why are you defending Steam so much, you got stock in Steam? 30% cut vs 12%, what other services do they provide to publishers that account for their 4.3 billion dollar earnings?

                                  • +1 vote

                                    @FabMan: hahahhaha move on man this is pathetic. your hate boner is gross

                                    •  

                                      @Kozhutki: Love it, the hate filled arguments at Epic got shown up time and again for being flawed and so you attack me personally stating I have the hate boner. Dude, next time you say pathetic, take a look in the mirror.

                              • +1 vote

                                @FabMan:

                                1. Steam takes 30% for the first $10 million, 25% of the next $40 million and 20% after that, this is widely known in the industry. As for what games are promoted on the front page, this is based on a number of factors mainly based around user interest in the titles. For sales, publishers are contacted beforehand asking them to opt into events and set the discount levels. Publishers aren't contacted to strike deals, and they aren't offered any incentive for participating in sales other than what all games will receive (with the exception of games chosen for special events, in in the last steam sale publishers could opt into participating in the event and valve worked with a number of them to create updates suitable for the event)

                                2. I never said Valve should release their games on any other platform, I also never said Epic should release their games on Steam. As the publishers for their own games it is their choice if they want to release them on other stores. Your entire point is moot because it has little to no relevance in the case of Epic offering publishers deals to be epic exclusives.

                                3. You are referring to a game made by Nintendo, which is only available on Nintendo's platform. This, I would not consider an exclusive in the same way I wouldn't consider TF2 a steam exclusive or Fortnite an epic exclusive. Sure they could be seen as such but at the end of the day these are games made by there same company that made the hardware/store. How about coming up with some examples of games that aren't made by the same company that makes the store or hardware?

                                Also as for your "news", sure Epic has that but that doesn't take from the fact that epic has signed deals with the publishers to keep the games off other platforms. The few cases of games being sold elsewhere and redeemable on Epic are from large publishers that can afford to sell keys on their own website or make a physical release. Not only this but when Epic first allowed publishers to sell games elsewhere this was restricted to titles that are not epic exclusives. They later went back on this decision and opened it up to epic exclusives as well. I believe this was due to backlash they received from publishers although I don't have any evidence to back up this claim.

                                Furthermore the main reason you would need steam to run a game is because it uses steam's DRM. Are you then going to claim a game is an exclusive to x company because it uses their DRM or exclusive to a company because it requires their anti cheat software to be installed alongside the game? Valve allows games to be sold on multiple stores with different DRM, they don't get publishers to sign a deal saying "This game will only use Steam DRM, therefore only be available via Steam"

                                Frankly if Epic wanted to do good for the industry they could offer their lower cut without signing publishers up to exclusivity deals. This would then leave it up to the publisher to decide if they want to release their game on multiple platforms and possibly make less due to steam's larger cut or only release it on the Epic Game Store. You are probably going to say it's already up to the publishers to decide what they want to do but it's not really. The way it is now, if a publisher wants to release something on EGS then they need to get in contact with EGS and work out a deal. This deal may include exclusivity rights or it may not depending on what Epic wants to do with said game. By signing the deal the publisher can no longer make the choice or by not making the deal they risk not being able to publish on EGS at all. Seeing as they take a lower cut it would be stupid for publishers not to take up the deal . The way Epic handles this gives the illusion of choice but what is choice when those are your options?

                                If Epic really wants to do some good for the industry, why would they release such a broken store? No shopping cart? I can put a store online for $10/month (or less even) with a shopping cart so why can't Epic? Their support seems to be non-existent too. I contacted their support Mid April about an issue I have where I used their client to install a game, I played it then uninstalled the game (once again via their client) just like I would for a game on steam. I am still missing ~30GB of storage and so I contacted their support about it. It has been over 3 months now and I have not gotten a single response. Why would I give my money or support to a company that can't even reply to a ticket within 3 months? The only thing I got was an automated email, their support site doesn't even seem to have a way for me to see my ticket. I don't agree with everything Valve has done with Steam but it is by far much better than Epic Games Store is.

                                •  

                                  @Hintswen: "Steam takes 30% for the first $10 million, 25% of the next $40 million and 20% after that, this is widely known in the industry"

                                  That only started October 2018, widely known in the industry for 9 months, before that it was a straight 30%. Valve's Gabe Newell bragged that Steam was more profitable on a per-employee basis than Google and Apple. Steam announced this a couple of months before Epic announced their store and their 12% fees. Developers have been complaining about Steam ignoring them, literally sending them questions and getting no answers and taking 30% of their sales. What % of games released make $10 million on Steam to get that 25% fee, or $50 million to get the 20% fee. Steam don't start giving discounts if they've sold well on other platforms.

                                  People promoting Steam as the good guys when they are making 4.3 billion US dollar per year to ignore the developers on their store, who tried milking customers by charging for free mods to be installed, who didn't offer refunds until legally told to blows my mind. I'm not saying Epic is good, but Epic don't seem any worse than the console manufacturers, Steam, uPlay, Origin and the rest. Except GoG, GoG seem like the only good guys to me.

                                  This is Epic to me: They've been selling the highly successful Unreal Engine since 1998. Currently the Unreal Engine charges just 5% to developers using their engine, but only when they've earnt over $3,000 per quarter. So if their game isn't successful, Epic doesn't charge game makers anything, really helping indie game makers. On top of that, any game using the Unreal engine on the Epic Store, Epic won't charge the developer / publisher that 5%. Meaning Epic only charges 12% to publishers / developers regardless of the engine they use, which is a very low amount compared to the competition.

                                  Buying games from Epic puts a lot more money in the hands of game developers, so I'll be supporting them, like I buy The Witcher series on GoG.com and why I'll buy CyberPunk 2077 on GoG too.

                                  As for the shopping cart, yeah, should be there, I agree. I'm not saying Epic is amazing, I just prefer competition, not supporting greedy companies like Steam, and getting more cash to the developers.

                                  •  

                                    @FabMan: Yes, widely known since it started, steam's previous flat 30% cut was also widely known before this. You want to make claims out of nowhere, I will provide the facts. Why would Valve provide discounted rates to games that sold well on other platforms? they get nothing from those sales. If I sell my game on my own website for $50 million and I buy it myself, I can then tell steam I have $50 million in sales. Why would steam reward me for that?

                                    People are promoting Steam as the good guys because despite all the bad they have done, they are generally the good guys. The amount of money they make does not have anything to do with them being good or bad. So what if they didn't offer refunds previously? Who did? Blizard's own policy for example has always been "No refunds are permitted except with respect to any statutory warranties or guaranties that cannot be excluded or limited by law." and while this does mean they would need to offer refunds in Australia, in practise they previously didn't in many cases because guess what, a lot of companies don't care about Australian laws. Their policy also means there's no refunds because you changed your mind about a game. Steam's refund policy is the best I have seen in a long time. I have refunded a game because I couldn't run it at the settings I wanted with a high FPS. I could have easily lowered my graphics settings to get to an acceptable frame rate but I didn't want to. Is this their fault? no. Am I entitled to a refund? No. Did Valve give me a refund? Yes. My PC didn't meet the requirements listed on the store page and it was my own fault for not checking them.

                                    Are you even aware of Epic's original refund policy or how their new refund process works for that matter? Their original policy was 2 refund requests per year, and only jumping through hoops to provide all the information they asked for including information they should be able to get themselves eg. Your IP Address and the invoice ID and unrelated information eg. The date you created your account, the date you last logged in, and the name of an account connected to your epic account. Last I checked for a refund with the new system you still needed to provide them with the invoice ID then wait for it to be manually processed.

                                    Sure Epic lets developers use their engine for free when they have low sales but why do they do this? To get indie developers using their engine so if they make big games or go to work for bigger companies, they have the experience with their engine. What engine is a big company likely to use? An engine that lots of new developers they can hire have experience with or some other random engine assuming they have the same features/cost? $3000/quarter isn't even that many sales, this is just 50 sales per month for a $20 game. Unity has a similar model, where their engine is available for free if you have less than $100k/year in revenue/funding. Valve also does this, their Source engine is completely free for use no matter how much you make in sales on steam (some included tools however require separate licensing eg. the Havok physics engine) however they do charge a licensing fee if you wish to sell your game on other platforms. Source 2 is also currently in development which will have no fee at all.

                                    Valve also gives developers access to a large number of features via Steamworks which Epic does not provide including but not limited to:

                                    • Valve Anti-Cheat
                                    • Achievements & leaderboards
                                    • Steam DRM
                                    • Steam Workshop
                                    • Matchmaking/lobbies & Steam Game Servers
                                    • Steam Cloud
                                    • Steam Inventory Service
                                    • Steam Keys

                                    Buying games from Epic means more money for the PUBLISHER not the developer. Sure the publisher may in some cases be the same as the developer, but it is not always the same. You know what Valve lets publishers do though? Valve lets publishers sell their game anywhere they want and keep not 70% not 88% but 100% of the sale. Valve makes absolutely no money from any keys sold via other stores eg. physical sales with a Steam key.

                                    Competition is great, but the tactics Epic uses is not good for competition or consumers.

                                    •  

                                      @Hintswen: I didn't see this till now, I'm a bit over this topic but your points do seem solid. After all this talking I think that the only really troublesome part of Epic's choice to promote its store is the use of exclusives, had it not, I imagine more people would be happier with the new store. I still don't see their use of exclusives as worse than the console choices, but that is my view. I'm not sure what other tactics are a problem.

                                      As for the Unreal Engine sales, like Source being free on Steam, the Unreal engine is free on the Epic store. No difference, except a lot more developers use the Unreal engine. The 5% is on sales outside the Epic store with no up front fees. Considering the number of developers using Source you'd have to state that even free, the Source engine is far behind most of the other engines, as such, not charging for sales made on Steam isn't exactly generous, as if they charged, would anyone use it? One of Valve's last games (The Lab) used Unity.

                                      Some of those features you mentioned are coming to Epic over the months including a better refund system, but they'll still be charging 12% once implemented. I am curious about the Steam Keys as a feature, what are they? Are you talking about the keys that you can purchase digitally online or that are on physical media? Don't all stores do that, including Epic or is that something else? You can get Epic games on digital stores too. What does Epic or GoG charge Publishers for keys redeemed on their service? I'm assuming it'll be the same amount as Steam, for free.

                                      Usually, but not always, developers get a % of revenue and bonuses for targets in reviews and sales from the publishers.

              • +3 votes

                @FabMan: Psyonix is no longer the developer and publisher. Epic is now the publisher.

                •  

                  @DogGunn: Good to know.

                  Currently it is still available to be purchased on Steam and Epic have stated they will continue to be supported on Steam too, it was only available on one Windows platform (Steam) and now it is only going to be available on one Windows platform (Epic). So no more or less anti-consumer than it was before.

                  • +1 vote

                    @FabMan: So because Microsoft and steam did it in the past, Epic gets a free go? LUL this thinking. Coat you arguments/comments with any amount of sugar, people will still hate on epic for this forced exclusivity. We've come a long way from the total war days, if Star wars battlefront 2 was released with its egregious loot box system back then, it would have been the standard for new game releases today. And to add more fuel to the fire, their damn platform isnt even bare feature complete yet we need to "use" their platforms cause of the exclusivity deal and you call this competition ROFL. Steam as it currently stands is more consumer friendly than the Epic store which eventually may or may not come to the same or better standing. "Buy from Epic to support Developers more" their so called motto has just put more hate towards these developers via the exclusivity nonsense as evidenced by your very own statement " their anger should really be focused at the developers who said yes for $" haha good one EPIC. Also Console is a lost cause, most of the first party exclusive titles are primarily funded by the console makers sony, microsoft and nintendo where as Epic just pays a lumpsum amount no where close to quarter of the money put into development. SO your Reasoning using consoles is moot. So if you want to convince someone that EPIC is consumer friendly may be patch it up but hiding such facts. Was excited when epic announced their support for devs and offering competition to other platform but with all this shoddy practices, its just an eyesore in the market.

                    • +1 vote

                      @darkoverlord: You are just rambling.

                      You don't want to purchase from Epic, fine, but their practices are pretty much in line with the console gaming industry, Steam, uPlay and Origin.

                      We've heard this impotent raging before, about Steam in fact. When Steam first started, the anger towards it was massive. Yet look at Steam now, the love people have towards it and the money it makes. I remember the anger towards Bethesda and their Horse Armor DLC, yet so many games have purchasable skins now.

                      You may never use Epic services, but people will, so the rage and tears are for naught. Consider their actual actions, exclusive games, already a standard practise.

                      • +3 votes

                        @FabMan: Bribing publishers with giant payouts so their game is ONLY on the epic store is not competition. This is just one of the many things that the EGS does that annoys me.
                        It'd be fine if the game was on both, that's competition. If EGS actually offered something comparable or even better than steam it'd have my interest but no, it doesn't even have a shopping cart.
                        It doesn't have game streaming, reviews, mod support, linux support and a whole host of other things that one would consider standard.
                        Literally the only reason they have the money to pull this (profanity) of a move and then pass it off as "competition" is because they have fortnite money.

                        Games can perfectly co-exist on platforms like steam and gog, that's competition, not this sham that is the EGS.

                        • -2 votes

                          @CriticalImpact: Bribery has connotations of corruption, please don't try to add criminal actions to what is standard business practice. Unless you consider XBox and PlayStations actions as corruption too when they paid for exclusives and timed exclusives.

                          You are ignorant to Epic if you think this is only capable due to Fortnite, not only have they created the successful Unreal series, Gears of War series, and Infinity Blade series on iOS, they developed the Unreal Engine that powers numerous successful games that pay Epic a reasonable 5%. The Epic store is an extension of their software to develop games with the Unreal Engine, they had an Epic store since before Fortnite as they sold assets for their engine that developers have been using for years.

                          Games made using the Unreal Engine:
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games

                      •  

                        @FabMan: Yea its not like whatever I've stated have credible proof that anyone can obtain by doing a simple google search. Keep your selective hearing out of the discussion and then it may not look like rambling. I've given reasons why most don't like EPIC practices not saying or encouraging others to follow my own personal purchase decision. Just cause you like to get all goody about the EPIC store doesn't mean all valid reasons can be classified as your self described "impotent raging". No one cares what you remember so instead of putting those up, may be learn to read the entire comment and understand what is being said first before replying with points to counter what what was said.

                        What practices are in line with console gaming, uplay and origin exclusives?

                        Console first party exclusives - FUNDED PRIMARILY BY RESPECTIVE CONSOLE PRODUCERS (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo)
                        UPLAY exclusives - major titles aren't even exclusives present on uplay and steam and even if exclusive is FUNDED PRIMARILY BY ubisoft.
                        Origin Exclusives - FUNDED PRIMARILY BY EA

                        EPIC EXCLUSIVES - No actual development input but purchases the right to exclusivity after the game development cycle is complete with FORTNITE money.

                        "You may never use Epic services, but people will, so the rage and tears are for naught" - show me the stats to back this up. Oh wait your just a random on the internet.

                        With gullible people like you out there and fornite money they don't have to worry about going out of business. This discussion feels like playing chess with a pigeon (you). Good day.

                        •  

                          @darkoverlord: Hey you want to promote the corporate greed of Steam like some fanboy, that is up to you. Steam chargers Publishers 30% to release on Steam while Epic is charging 12%. Which is fantastic for Publishers and Developers, but (profanity) them right? As long as you get what you want.

                          Epic Store existed before Fortnite, Fortnite allowed Epic to fund exclusives, and Epic stated they'll drop exclusives when Steam chargers publishers a reasonable amount, but we know Steam won't. Hey they didn't want to give refunds until they were forced too, plus Vavle's last game was a Card game designed just to grab cash, they also tried to charge for free mods before the backlash. Not really a morally high company who rolls in 4.3 billion US a year.

                          You scream about consoles funding exclusives during development, but what about when they haven't, the third party publishers, or the timed exclusives, or the different DLC you can get. They were finacially encouraged, or bribed if you wear tin foil hats, by those console manufacturers. Just like Epic.

                          Here is a list, everyone of them directly funded by the console manufacturers?:
                          https://gematsu.com/exclusives

                          More competitin against Steam and their 30% take is great for the game makers and it'll be great for us consumers down the line when those game makers have more cash to devlop better games.

                          Now go pick up your dummy you spat out.

                          •  

                            @FabMan: While the 12% vs 30% looks good on paper it's not a true representation of the "cut" Epic and Steam get, Steam covers all transaction costs associated with a game purchased on their platform, Epic does not.
                            Developers get roughly the same "cut" on either platform at the end of the day, it's a good marketing ploy for Epic though.

                            •  

                              @Furtive Pygmy: What transactions costs are those and where did you read that? Considering that Gabe brags about Steam's profits, what additional costs is Steam covering?

                              At the Games Developer Conference in 2019, only 6% of the developers said Valve is justified in their 30% cut, while 32% said they are not, the rest were in between. Also Epic, who charge 5% for the use of their engine, remove that 5% charge when selling through their store. They are actually giving up a huge chunk of money.

                              'No Steam, No Sale', I find that often spouted phrase a weird of saying 'Price gouge me please'.

                              • +1 vote

                                @FabMan: The transaction costs are the GST/VAT etc. I have spoken with game developers that have released on both platforms. I believe Epic pass these costs onto the customer at checkout, Steam wraps it up in their 30%.
                                Steam offers more QOL features over Epic, the major one being regional pricing of their product.

                                Removing a 5% commission that shouldn't be there in the first place is a joke, I doubt it is a huge amount as I'd wager the companies making the most money are developing engines in-house.

                                I'm not arguing that Steam's 30% is justified, I'm just saying that Epic's doesn't end up being an 18% difference when everything's said and done.

                                •  

                                  @Furtive Pygmy: I've done some research and you've not understood what the transaction fees part is, nothing to do with taxes. Epic pass the cost of certain payment methods onto the consumer, not the Publisher, Steam covers those costs by charging the Publisher more. So PayPal, Direct Debit and Credit Cards have no additional fees, but by using some payment methods, Epic increases the game price.

                                  It looks like the Publishers are only charged the 12%, but consumers can be paying a 1% or 2% extra if they don't pay with standard methods. Now Epic are getting charged that amount but they are passing it back to the consumer.

                                  So I guess it's what you see as fair, better % for those publishing and developing games, vs paying 2% more when paying with non-standard methods. I think it seems fair. Epic are making a lot less revenue, so they cannot soak it up like Steam can.

                                  So just to confirm, you don't think Epic should be charging 5% for them developing the Unreal game engine? The Unreal Engine is incredibly advanced, with fantastic tools, that is why it is so widely used.

                                  •  

                                    @FabMan: You're right, it looks like I got my wires crossed with the regional pricing and and transaction fees. Epic does appear to be better.

                                    Yes, to confirm I think 5% revenue share for using UE to develop is too much. Any percentage of revenue for using a piece of software is the definition of price gouging, this is the same as Microsoft charging businesses 5% of their revenue for using Windows.
                                    Yes I've used UE and no the features don't justify the price, there are other engines with more reasonable pricing schemes that achieve the same thing.

                                    •  

                                      @Furtive Pygmy: Well, on the UE thing I guess we'll disagree. The feature set seems extensive and constantly updating, and by the number of developers using their engine over others, it looks like game developers at least accept the costs even if they don't like it.

                                      I'll admit that while the 5% really helps small developers who might not make that much, it would hit the larger games harder, like Rocksteady with the Batman Arkham series.

                                      •  

                                        @FabMan: The only people that are paying the 5% are the small to medium studios. Rocksteady (And all big studios) would have negotiated a better deal so it's not a good comparison.
                                        There are a large number of engines that are feature rich and constantly updating.

                                        There is no objectively better engine, meaning 5% is too much for me. By the same logic of people using it, we could argue Steam's 30% is perfectly fine because a lot of people are using it no matter what the cost.

                                        •  

                                          @Furtive Pygmy: "only people that are paying the 5% are the small to medium studios."

                                          Good news then, as they charge nothing until they've earnt more than $3,000 in a quarter, so indie developers taking a risk might not be costly as not upfront fees and if it does miserably, still no fees. Creating an engine anywhere near as advanced as the Unreal Engine would cost millions and years of development, if Rocksteady could negotiate a better deal, which I believe they have but I have no evidence of, then Rocksteady wouldn't be paying a fortune either while having access to probably the best game engine available. Apparently when Unreal changed pricing models in 2014, their subscription rate increased by 10x, so developers like it, otherwise they could choose Unity or something else.

                                          "we could argue Steam's 30% is perfectly fine because a lot of people are using it"

                                          Except we are discussing competition, I think, I've been debating so much I'm loosing the plot a bit.

                                          Unreal Engine has plenty of competition with Unity, GameMaker Studio, Godot, CryEngine, Lumberyard, RPG Maker, Frostbite, Source, and tons of others. Which is great and I'd like more. Source 2 is free if you only sell on Steam, you can sell on other platforms but you have to pay $25,000 up front, which is hard on Indie developers, plus to sell not on Steam you have to negotiate a fee. Only 6 third party developed games using Source have been released in the past 4 years as it isn't good enough for most developers or too expensive for Indie developers. In fact Valve used Unity to help build their game The Lab (2016). I'm personally using Unity for my projects as it is simpler to use than Unreal, so I don't think I'm too biased towards Unreal.

                                          We've had digital distribution channels for many years, but Steam really took a massive market share, but then we got GoG, uPlay, Origin, and plenty of others. Now we have Epic, but unlike Origin and uPlay focusing on EA and Ubisoft games, Epic is a channel for any publisher choosing to use them. Epic is charging a lot less than the competition which is great for the Publishers and Developers.

                                          People are complaining that Epic is creating competition in a method they do not like, and I understand that, but even with the other platforms Steam controls over 50% of the market, how does Epic break that? Well they made discounts that drove quite a few Publishers to them, and offered free games to potential customers, but what upset people is the exclusives, and I do understand that. People want choices and they want their Borderlands 3 to go alongside the rest of the Borderlands series. That does suck, but having the Epic Store is a good option, with a sucky method of getting attention. But hey, Metro Exodus isn't exclusive to Epic any more, it is on Microsoft Store too.

                                          Some people are acting as if Epic is pure evil, these people are not thinking rationally and saying things like "No Steam, no sale" is crazy to me as you are asking for price gouging. Overall having the Epic Store is good, but I'll admit they have (profanity) up with their marketing.

                                          • +1 vote

                                            @FabMan: While it is probably the best engine for AAA's a 5% hit to smaller companies, not hobbyists earning less than 3k/quarter, is large enough to be put off by it.
                                            UE is essentially a software suite, if Adobe/MS/Apple etc. started charging an arbitrary % of your wage for their software would you be OK with it?

                                            I agree about Epic, it promotes competition in the market. Their exclusivity deals with publishers was what set people off I think, without this but a ~10% saving on games compared to Steam would have probably switched the narrative completely.

                                            I appreciate the responses and see you're busy replying to other users throughout the thread but definitely like seeing other points of view.

                                            •  

                                              @Furtive Pygmy: It has been great chatting with you, I like that we can disagree and still be civil.

                                              I can see your point about the Adobe software suite (and the others), I can. The only difference is that those software charges an upfront fee, that can be quite reasonable, while Unreal is free to use but charges a % of your revenue. If you have no money, an upfront fee could be killer to you even starting, so a 5% fee would seem extremely reasonable for the engine and tools, but if your game is a surprise success, 5% could be quite a lot of money Epic earns.

                                              I think Epic Store will push Steam, Steam has had it easy for many years, GoG, Origin and uPlay probably hurt a little, but with Bethesda out recently how long until Activision and the others have their own store? Epic Store, might be the push that us as consumers can really benefit from. Though we'll have 20 different launchers and stores we'll need to install.

                                              Have a good one!

                          • -1 vote

                            @FabMan: Promote corporate greed = asking for a feature complete store (or atleast the customer friendly ones), not liking the exclusivity nonsense and fake sense of competition ( no better deals only straight up exclusivity). BUUUUT the DEVS get more money…. pfft right lets ignore every damn (profanity) problem cause the devs gets more money.

                            "Epic stated they'll drop exclusives when Steam chargers publishers a reasonable amount" - Yea drop it from 30% to 12% in a single day cause these stores are all charity centers. Its a damn failsafe statement. Hey I'm going end all conflicts in the world but only when the sun no longer shines….but we know it will…

                            "You scream about consoles funding exclusives during development, but what about when they haven't, the third party publishers, or the timed exclusives, or the different DLC you can get"…. Right so you want to port the timed exclusivity nonsense that were largely present in the console area to the PC area by the dev friendly EPIC store….LUL get the (profanity) outta here.

                            I dont mind small/Indie devs benefiting of the upfront cash from EPIC. But YEA Borderlands, Outer worlds (paragon interactive/Take two), Metro exodus and the Division 2, huge AAA titles with a solid fanbase and a well established publishers need that extra $$$$ to keep their lights on. The devs will barely see any money from the exclusivity deal and steam charges these guys well below the 30% share. BUT YEA we gotta use the barebone EPIC store thats promoting competition. With exclusivity, where is the competition? who are they competing with? when the product is only available through them. Dont need a tin foil hat to figure that out.

                            "Now go pick up your dummy you spat out" ROFL rich coming from the bird brained person having a hard on for EPIC.

                            • -1 vote

                              @darkoverlord: This isn't a discussion, you are having a tantrum online.

                              Steam charges what guys well below 30%? Steam charges the first $10 million at 30%, sales after that is 25% and sales after $50 million get charged 20%. Those lower % are only after they have paid the higher % and once they've exceeded $50 million in sales on their platform. That only started in October 2018, just before Epic officially launched. Something tells me the additional competition actually helped Publishers and Developers on Steam get a marginally better rate.

                              Did you notice when Metro Exodus moved from Steam to Epic their price dropped $10 stating 'They can afford to now'.

                              Can you chat calmly now, or are you going to carry on with capital letters and repeating the same letters to emphasize your emotions over actual logic?

                              • -1 vote

                                @FabMan: Nope, the Caps are there mainly to put emphasis on basic information that's readily available on the internet. Something you have just conveniently ignored to even look up. The other times like LOL, ROFL, EPIC, AAA are generally spelt out in caps with YEA being the exception.

                                If you think this is me having a "tantrum", it's cause you look like a village idiot from my side, just based on some of your replies and I feel the need the put some emphasis to get the message through..

                                Moving on,

                                Not gonna argue about the dev revenue share as I know its one of the very few good things about the EPIC store and probably its best selling point at the moment especially for indie/AA devs.

                                Tell me which saintly Dev would not accept a hefty cashout offered by Epic that covers some of their sales besides CDPR? Dont need to include indie devs as I know their predicament and there are some that flat out ignored the epic offer.

                                "Did you notice when Metro Exodus moved from Steam to Epic their price dropped $10 stating 'They can afford to now'." Did you also notice the swap/exclusivity was done close to release? Tim tweeted such things wont happen in the future and later tweeted its up to the developer to accept the offer or not, kinda invalidating the first customer friendly tweet?

                                Going past Metro exodus, tell me about the other AAA titles, what good deal or at best $10 price drop has EPIC game store put out? As Tim pointed out its the developers that will win the battle of the store fronts not the customers, their motto and direction they've been taking.
                                Saying stuff like " something tells me this so called competition" doesn't really cut it especially when you want most of these discussion based on logic. Facts and numbers, can we discuss the sales of these game?

                                Metro Exodus - not comparable as not yet released on other major platforms but epic compared the game sales data with data for metro last light, a game that was released 6 years ago and said the title did really well on the epic store (conveniently ignoring player base growth and nicheness of the first two games (hell I only played those via the Metro Redux version on sale 2 years ago) at the time of their releases)

                                The Division 2 - Sales data according to epic says it did well but not as good as division 1, Game sells 10 times more units on Uplay than on EPIC store …. don't really need to explain what happened here now do I?

                                The main point is " Sure the revenue point is good and all but that doesn't excuse the other faults like the lack lustre store features, forced exclusivity and the lack of any real competition with better deals on Epic.

                                The cycle should always be customer satisfaction —> additional revenue for the devs. Feel free to disagree but a customer satisfied with a product is more likely to support the devs behind it. Information posted here is available via a simple google search. Good day.

                                • -1 vote

                                  @darkoverlord: You may have good points, I won't know, not reading it. Good day.

                                  • -1 vote

                                    @FabMan: Not a problem. Just proves what I said in an earlier comment. Good day.

      • +8 votes

        Think a bunch of people were pissed when some games were advertised as launching on Steam, then later it was an Epic exclusive. Most egregious was a crowd funded one, so people were out money who may not have backed if they had known it was going to be on Epic only.

        •  

          That last one seems like the first good reason (to me) to get annoyed at Epic, but their anger should really be focused at the developers who said yes for $.

        •  

          Didn't epic offer to refund the money of anyone who asked? Doesn't sound that anti consumer to me.

          •  

            @froggym: I think they're front it yeah, that was only after the backlash though.

  •  

    For some reason I got a $5 promotional discount, only paid $43 :)

    Item Subtotal: $43.64
    Postage & Packing: $0.00
    Promotion Applied: -$4.55
    Total Before GST: $39.09
    GST: $3.91
    Order Total: $43.00

    •  

      Probably from the hitman game that didn't get honoured

      •  

        Not aware of this reference… So maybe not?

        • +3 votes

          Prime video promo or first time using amazon app?

          •  

            @Vinodra: Used the web and didn't apply any coupons. Also don't have prime video. I'm not complaining in the end

    • +1 vote

      very strange, i got $10 of so i only paid $38

      absolutely no idea why tho. i dont think i had any gift card balance remaining, as it would have been used up on a purchase i made last week.
      Certainly not complaining tho, what a damn bargain :)

      •  

        Now I feel ripped off, and neither of us know why haha

      •  

        So far while buying on Amazon I've had multiple credits, a $10 first buying on the app, a sorry we don't have stock so here's a refund and $10, and the Colgate electric toothbrushes picture mistake which gave me $5… U can't see it easily and if you don't see the email it just looks like a surprise discount hahaha

    •  

      Did you buy the cheapo Colgate electric toothbrushes? It was pictured with two heads in one shot and came with one so Amazon gave a $5 credit… I had nfi but didn't argue lolll

  • +12 votes

    Bought.

    Epic Games Bad brigade be damned.

  • +9 votes

    Thanks op.

    The anti epic thing doesnt bother me too much, many forgot how expensive steam is for aussies now.

    •  

      And EGS isn't with USD pricing lol? If you buy games off steam and not a third party you deserve to get ripped off.

  • +5 votes

    Cheers OP, bought.

    Epic platform is fine by me.
    It's all business and competition is good.
    The amount of free gaming EPIC has been giving away is awesome; more than makes up for the OTT anti-consumer BS going around.

    •  

      Why do you think they are giving away free games? Because it appeases the masses and makes them look good. What they are doing is not good for the consumer.

  • +2 votes

    Was anyone going to get the Deluxe/Super Deluxe versions but settled on this as its much cheaper?

    •  

      You get a few extra skins and weapons which probably will be useless after an hour or two. The DLC can be added on with a season pass

      •  

        You're right. Ordered for now.

  • +3 votes

    I remember people here and on WP bitching about how bad Amazon is when it launched thinking it wouldn't get better..

  •  

    Good price, pre-ordered with cashback.

  •  

    Would like to be able to Sang this For my PS4

  •  

    Why am I getting a price more expensive than RRP? $72.41 :(
    Guess I missed out on the deal :(
    After a couple of refreshers, price has gone back to $68

  •  

    Does anyone think the Super Deluxe version will go on sale before release, or will they try and hold strong on the high price and just put standard on sale?

    • +2 votes

      Super Deluxe is an EB exclusive I believe and they I doubt EB wil lower the price. Amazon doesnt take the money until like the day before it ships so you can always order this now and cancel later

  • +1 vote

    Still said 48$ after i ordered i should be fine right? after it said expired haha

    • +1 vote

      If it says $48 in Your Orders then you got it for the price

      •  

        Yep it does lucky me :D

  •  

    Back in stock!

  • -2 votes

    Since no one has mentioned it here I will
    Remeber folks never preorder.

    • +1 vote

      or let people spend the money they earn how they please. you're not a martyr

    •  

      Used to think like this, but I've been experiencing more and more games that have gotten destroyed by reviews that I really, really have fell in love with; and others that have reviewed extremely well that I have hated, so I no longer read reviews. I watch a trailer, then order it if I found it interesting. If it turns out I wasted my money on something that sucks; I can wear that, but on the other hand; if I've pre-ordered a game that I end up loving; I have no problems giving the publisher the full price they wanted. Also, more pre-orders and first week sales; the more likely a game you liked will get a sequel.

    • +1 vote

      TBH if BL3 was just BL2 with the name and story changed, I'd still pre-order the (profanity) out of it. Why fix what ain't broke

    • +1 vote

      I havent preordered a game in years, however at this price you cant say no. It will save me a lot of time bargain hunting on release day thats for damn sure.

  •  

    Showing $68 for me now.

  • +1 vote

    arrrgh… showing $68 for me too. How did I miss this!! Oh that's right, cause I was replaying BL2 again all last night.