Yeah, and it’s a nightmare to use with Steam link. The last epic exclusive I bought was The Expanse, but adding it as a non-Steam game to play with the link app completely screwed up the license check and locked you out of everything but the first episode.
I tried GTA5 when I made an account there. The game was given free. Didn’t play for long though, and I dislike the idea of having more than Steam. (I have GOG for Sims but I don’t use that either)
I tried Rocket League at work. It is fun and I’d like to continue at home…but opening up that Epic Store kinda is a turn-off for the deal.
Man, i kinda hate the epic games launcher, it is really crap; but for me games being on epic is not problem, i just use heroic instead, it’s MUCH faster than epic’s slop; what i don’t like is games that for some reason just refuse to work on heroic despite EOS being installed
I say this every time Epic comes up but it remains the same.
Steam is the pro-consumer storefront. Epic is the pro-developer storefront. What Epic seems to fail to understand is that by being so staunchly pro-developer, they effectively become anti-consumer. And as a consumer, I’m just not going to spend money on an anti-consumer marketplace.
When Epic considers adding necessary pro-consumer measures like actual user reviews so I can hear how a game actual performs from real end users, then and only then will I consider Epic a real storefront viable for consumers.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Epic’s main selling point was it’s lower storefront fee (15% vs 30%, if I recall). It didn’t offer any other benefits for consumers and I think Epic realised rather quickly that the people who are actually supposed to be paying money for all of this are the buyers and not the sellers, and thus they’ve resorted to strategies like making games “exclusive” or trying to bribe players with free games.
I understand that they are pro-developers, like, they only tale 15% of the sales etc. But why are they anti-consumers?
I use Heroic Games Launcher on Nobara Linux and my experience is more seamless than buying and installing games from Steam. I don’t have to bother with Epic Games Launcher, I just download a game and run via proton or wine.
I gave what I see as a significant example in my original comment. Not being able to see comments or reviews from those who have purchased games through the storefront is a problem for me. If a game has a bug or problem, especially if it is one that could potentially be tied to or unique to the EGS version, I would like to know about it. That EGS currently doesn’t provide readily available user feedback when it frankly has been the standard as defined by steam, just doesn’t for me.
So you have to ask yourself why they wouldn’t include such a simple a rudimentary feature - the only result I can come up with is to appease developers who want to prevent being negatively impacted by bad reviews. Thus what we have is prioritizing the wants of developers at the expense of features which benefit consumers.
The fact that you can’t use the Epic games launcher on Linux should be telling you what you need to know.
How is their 12 foot interface these days?
How is their position on running things via wine? Tim the bellend has generally been telling Linux users to use wine, but at the same time been generally hostile to it.
I agree they don’t have to be anti-consumer to be pro-developer, but my point is that that is how they are approaching being pro-developer - by limiting pro-consumer features at the behest of developers. Or perhaps I should be saying more actively publishers, to be fair.
For there to be competition, there have to be some features. Epic just uses exclusivity deals as an alternative to features.
I am not sure what that is, but there is no competition.
There are so many games that I don’t even care about all the games available on Steam (that I’d be willing to play). We have so many games coming out that I’d have to play game for a living to play all the games I want to play, and even then I’m not 100% sure I’d be able to play everything I’d be open to play. I have multiple games that I’ve purchased and installed thinking “I’ll get to them soon enough” and they’re just taking drive space. I also have multiple games on my wishlist that are “waiting for a discount” but I’m probably never going to pick them up because actually they’re waiting for my backlog to clear and it will never clear.
Does it suck that Alan Wake is Epic exclusive. Sure. Does it really matter to me? Not really because I’m oversaturated with games I want to play. Missing one great game doesn’t matter when I already have a backlog of great games I won’t purchase because I have a backlog of great games I’ve purchased that I won’t play because I have a backlog of great games I really want to play.
One reason is Valve has put a fuckton of effort into linux support. So for linux users, buying a game on Steam means it’s probably going to work right out of the box. Buying from Epic, it’s a crapshoot.
For example, I spent hours trying to get Red Dead Redemption 2 that I had bought from Epic to work. Never did, something with rockstar launcher compatibility. Gave up and bought it again on Steam, worked the first time I hit play.
I agree with the sentiment that people should shut up already about the launcher thing. I know it's aggravating, but, there's options.
However when it comes between Steam vs Epic as storefronts, you'd be hard-pressed to try and find anything to like about what Epic has done with their launcher vs the years of hard work and labor for Valve to get Steam to where it is today. Epic's launcher is like where Steam's was - 17 years ago. It's noticeable, you can't hide it.
Hell, Epic takes less of a share of the sale. It is better for devs.
88% of 1.000 vs 70 of 1.000.000? Which one is better? People don’t like what they did with exclusives. I’m kinda okay-ish if you keep the game you founded locked on your store for a year or 2 but not all the games you get by paying devs to release it exclusive to some shitty launcher
Yeah because it’s still in development and not yet available. S&box is one of the “games” already using it in the background. When it releases to the public, it’ll be just as popular as Source was - especially with the pricing strategy of “the only thing you need to pay for it is the steam fee” which is what, $100 per game?
Is it? I last read about their pricing when greenlight was a thing and they said it’s for the shop / adverts / all the cool things you get for support of the game. Didn’t know they gave back the $100
I mean, they have Source 2, but to call it a rival before it’s even made it to third-party developers (Facepunch games is effectively second party) is a bit of a stretch.
lemmy.world
Aktywne