I really hope they patch some of the bugs then because otherwise it's gonna be unplayable. I have to use the remove glitch mod since my save got bugged after the glitch effect got stuck permanently on my character after a convo with Johnny.
Although, I can imagine supporting Epic is annoying. Unlike even GOG, they don’t have their own support mechanism like a forum. I can see why someone would release on Steam (and hence stuff like GMG and Humble) and even GOG but not Epic. Example Baldur’s Gate 3, which released on everything except Epic. Although in their case Larian commented that the decision to not release on Epic was specifically to not show support for their exclusives-everything stance. Hence on everything except Epic.
Developers would for sure do that, if it were possible. Who wouldn’t take more exposure to their project as a beneficial thing. Problem is probably in legal part of releasing stuff.
But that’s not what Epic is after. They tried to go hard after the sellers, figuring that if they can corner enough fo the market with exclusives the buyers will have to come.
They did both things.
Yes, they went after sellers, because they needed something to sell. Nobody’s going to go to the new upstart store without some incentive. For sellers, that incentive was piles of money (with the understandable trade off of an exclusivity period - a completely normal thing for businesses to do).
But they also went after buyers by handing out hundreds of free games to build up everyone’s libraries (something they’re obviously still doing), and by running the best sales seen on a PC store since Valve stopped doing flash deals during their sales.
But nothing they do is going to achieve your statement of “you could run a slightly less feature-rich store, take less of a cut, and pass the reduction fully on to consumers and you’d be an easy choice for many gamers.” They actually tried that at the start, with Metro [Whatever - I don’t play the Metro series so I can never keep the titles straight] launching at a reduced price point because of the lowered cut, but everyone just focused on “ZOMG, I HAVE TO CLICK A DIFFERENT ICON TO LAUNCH IT?!?!11”. Aside from that example, though, the pricing of the games isn’t up to them. Blame the publishers for prices staying the same while they pocket the extra from the lowered store cut - they could easily pass it along to consumers, but they choose not to. Epic themselves did what they could with the coupons during sales (leading to devs/pubs like CDPR maliciously increasing the prices of their games to disqualify them from it just to spite Epic and their potential buyers) and now the not-nearly-as-good-a-deal cash back program they’re doing.
The bulk of gamers simply don’t want to buy from anything other than Steam, and nothing anyone says or does will budge them from that. Every argument against EGS existing is just a rationalization of that stance. I’ve literally seen people say “I want every game on every store and then I’ll buy it from Steam.”
While I can understand the difficulty of trying to come up with competition to a pre-existing and dominant storefront, they went about it almost entirely the wrong way. They underestimated consumers’ aversion to change and overestimated the value their own launcher provided.
Everybody and their mother used Steam at the time, and it provided a whole lot more than just a storefront and icons to click. When Epic launched EGS, it offered absolutely none of that. Without any social aspects or significant consumer buy-in to their ecosystem, it had no staying power. People—myself included—would go to it to play a shiny new free game until it stopped being fun, then fuck right off back to Steam to play our other games with friends. If they had spent more time cooking up the EGS ecosystem into something more similar to XBL or PSN before trying to attract consumers en masse, they likely would’ve been pretty successful. They could’ve even just decided to partner up with (or buy) NexusMods and integrated a mod manager, and a lot of us would’ve had a good reason to prefer EGS over Steam for some games.
Instead of doing something to make their ecosystem more appealing, though, they used paid-for exclusives to make other ecosystems less appealing. It was an obvious attempt to herd consumers into their ecosystem, and it backfired spectacularly. Before that, most people were either indifferent or liked them as a company due to their legacy and/or Unreal Engine. These days, I see a lot of bitching about “timed exclusives”.
If they had spent more time cooking up the EGS ecosystem into something more similar to XBL or PSN before trying to attract consumers en masse, they likely would’ve been pretty successful.
That’s not remotely how it would have happened.
Have a read over this article that was posted by Lars Doucet (well-respected indie developer of Defender’s Quest) roughly a year before EGS even launched. It lays out exactly what a Steam competitor is going to run into trying to break into that market and provides a blueprint to not fail that is almost exactly what Epic did. And yet, the discussion to this day is still filled with nothing but “REEEEE, EXCLUSIVES!!!1”, nevermind the fact that those games all still run perfectly fine on the exact same machine you launch your Steam games from (excepting, now - multiple years on from the whole kerfuffle having begun - the Deck… buying straight from Steam does make that a much nicer/smoother experience). You can even add them to Steam to get the extra features like the controller customization and such.
Basically, even if they built a launcher that was better in every conceivable way than Steam, nobody was going to switch. They had to do something else to bring both devs and players on board. As the article states:
Even if every aspect of your service is better than Steam’s in every possible way, you’re still up against the massive inertia of everybody already having huge libraries full of games on Steam. Their credit cards are registered on Steam, their friends all play on Steam, and most importantly, all the developers, and therefore all the games, are on Steam.
I summarily addressed the inertia issue already, when I mentioned that they underestimated consumer’s unwillingness to change.
The article is primarily aimed at startups, who don’t have the same amount of money to pour into software development, testing, and infrastructure.
Epic almost did exactly what the article suggested, but it notably did not improve anything over Steam. It didn’t even try for parity with Steam. In my opinion, as someone who plays PC games, that removed any chance of me even considering using it in any serious capacity.
I genuinely think they would’ve had a shot at being successful if they had tried to improve the state of PC gaming. Steam is massive, but it’s not without its pain points. The core of the client is ancient, and the fact that it heavily utilizes CEF makes it a bit of a resource hog. There’s a lot of bugs hidden in the nooks and crannies, and legacy cruft makes fixing some of these issues take a very long time.
Epic had the right approach to getting their foot in the door by giving away games for free and paying/bribing developers to release non-exclusive games on their platform. They just fucked up everything else.
Some things they could have done to help themselves:
Released a client that worked more consistently than Steam:
Steam Cloud is extremely opaque about errors.
Download times are inaccurate, particularly when dealing with IO.
Chat windows are pretty laggy and resource-intensive.
Built-in Nvidia GameStream protocol support.
GameStream has lower latency than Steam Link.
Integrated mods.
They wouldn’t get developer buy-in for a new ecosystem, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t just buy out an existing mod platform and integrate it.
Forums, chat, and social features.
Lacking these, they’re basically asking players to go to Steam whenever they need to find comminuty guides or discussions.
Achievements and matchmaking as a drop-in Steam API replacement.
An equivalent to Steam Input for remapping controller inputs on a per-game basis.
A CEO that knows when to stop talking.
The impression I get from him talking is that he thinks he’s the messiah of PC gaming. The impression I get from his actions is that he’s just like the rest of the publishers trying to grope our wallets at every opportunity. I doubt I’m the only one.
I think Epic definitely fucked some things up, but I really think the takeaway is that, if anyone has any hope for competing, they are absolutely going to need exclusives. This has been studied in the economics literature. In order for a newcomer to compete, you need exclusives. The dominant platform will automatically get the big titles, and players aren’t going to switch platforms to get the same titles they could’ve gotten without switching.
How did Valve get gamers to switch from physical boxed games to Steam? Exclusives. There was actually a digital distribution platform that predated Steam (run by Stardock), and it was more feature complete than Steam when Steam came out. But it didn’t have any exclusives, so it died out in favor of the (at the time) more spartan Steam platform.
Love or hate exclusives, nobody ever gets anywhere in the marketplace without them.
I also think the problem is how they executed some of their exclusives. There have been multiple games, mostly in the past now, that announced launching on certain platforms, including Steam, then had to backtrack and reveal that Epic bought their exclusivity and that gamers that were already expecting to get the game from one platform, now wouldn't be able to.
Even though that doesn't change the end result of what you're getting, the feeling that the timing and method of the exclusivity deal left you with was... a surprise that forced the buyer to reevaluate their expectations and have to consider the purchase all over again on a different storefront, because of that storefront's direct monetary intervention.
It came off as a corporate bribe that lessened the consumer's options, for no benefit to the consumer. The pure taste that actions like that left in my mouth got me to never even claim any free Epic games and to wait an entire year for Hitman 3 to drop on Steam even though the reboot trilogy are some of my favorite games of all time, and I won't even get into the snafu that game particularly had with transferring trilogy content paid for on Steam to Epic.
If they hadn't gone about purchasing exclusivity deals in that fashion, I may have bought some things on sale from them, or at the least claimed some games allowing their launcher to live on my machine, but instead it drove me away.
There have been multiple games, mostly in the past now, that announced launching on certain platforms, including Steam, then had to backtrack and reveal that Epic bought their exclusivity and that gamers that were already expecting to get the game from one platform, now wouldn’t be able to.
There was one game that happened to. Metro. And anyone who had already pre-purchased on Steam had it fulfilled through Steam at launch.
The rest of the games people claim this happened to were Kickstarter projects in which the backer reward promised a “digital key”. Now, at the time of those Kickstarter campaigns, the only stores that existed were Steam and GOG, so there was an assumption made that the keys would be to one of those two. But by the time the games were getting ready to launch, another option came into existence and devs who clearly needed money (or they wouldn’t have been going to Kickstarter to begin with) made a deal.
Well, I also count Hitman 3 since it delayed my ability to complete the trilogy I'd been playing for years at that point by another year without having to deal with the storefront content transfer issues that weren't guaranteed to be handled by IOI as well as they ended up being after some struggle.
For me, the one time with Metro and the deal with Hitman were two distasteful deal executions too many.
There have been multiple games, mostly in the past now, that announced launching on certain platforms, including Steam, then had to backtrack and reveal that Epic bought their exclusivity and that gamers that were already expecting to get the game from one platform, now wouldn’t be able to.
Valve did a similar thing to this. I don’t know if you remember the original state of Half-Life and Counter Strike, but they originally didn’t require any launcher. Then, one release, Valve announced that the old version was going to be shutdown and they would require Steam for now on. People had already purchased the game and been playing it outside of Steam, so they were pretty pissed that all the sudden they needed this launcher / account to keep playing a game that didn’t require one out of the box. I was especially pissed, because I think I was the only one in my group of friends that realized that they had unilaterally removed the option to resell / give away your game, and that seemed like bullshit to me, because I occasionally gave my old games to my friends when I was tired of them. The boxed copies of Half-Life and CS allowed for resell/transfer of the game, but they forced everyone over to Steam with an update and the Steam terms removed the option to transfer the game to someone else. Plus, Steam was an absolute awful piece of software at the time, and that made everything worse.
I’m guessing this also happened to other games as well. There was a period there where people would pre-order a game assuming it would work as a traditional, standalone boxed game. But then they’d get the game and it would unexpectedly require Steam, and the buyers would be pissed. Nowadays you just assume a launcher will be required, but it came as a shock / infuriated / disappointed people back when it first started being a thing that PC games were tied to launchers / accounts (and people hated Steam / launchers). Lots of people felt duped.
Anyway, I’m of the opinion that it’s bad for software to ever require or be tied to any launcher, even worse if it’s a third party launcher. It makes the future of games access muddy (What if Steam shuts down? What if there’s a court injunction against Steam requiring it to cease operations? What if my country blocks access to Steam?) and also adds extra layers of insecurity (last time I looked, there was at least one security issue in Steam that remained unpatched since around 2012).
So, to me, switching from Steam to EGS just meant consumers were getting punched in the nuts by a different company. I’d be happy if they weren’t getting punched in the nuts at all.
Interesting, that was before my time. I remember getting on Steam for when Half Life 2 released, but I believe that was required right out the gate, and I was already enthralled enough by the game to just give in to it, I was a kid anyway.
I take it you prefer getting games from GOG in that case? They're almost the last bastion for PC games in that way.
I’d say of the current players, GOG is among my favorites since they make the launcher component optional.
In general, I’ve just been disappointed that all the launchers have taken off. I get the convenience factor, but consumers also had some rights that were taken away with the move to launchers. Plus the fact that some of the launchers have terrible security practices, as I mentioned, and that makes it so even a game with great security has unnecessarily increased attack surfaces. And launchers also screw over people with limited internet access, which is admittedly fewer people throughout the world every day, but there are still military personnel, etc. that just cannot reasonably be expected to access the internet on the whim of a launcher.
I suspect we’ll see the same thing happen with Epic that happened with Steam, where people end up forgetting all about the early fucked up stuff and, in the end, just rolling with it. Some years down the line, people won’t even remember how much people were pissed off about the early days of Epic. As an example, any time I mention that I’m not a huge fan of Steam, based partly on remembering the forced move of existing / new games in the early days, people just shrug it off and act like it was fine for Valve to do that since, years later, we got the current, well liked iteration of Steam.
And that’s kinda how I feel about Epic. If Steam can ultimately get a pass for completely ruining the experience of a few games by forcing people to use it against their will in the early days, why shouldn’t Epic get a chance at a pass in the end too? Maybe it turns out to be great years down the line? The only reason we have the Steam that’s well liked today is because consumers put up with it in the early days. Would we be better off if Steam failed early on? If consumers had held their ground when they hated it and forced it to close down? I kinda doubt it. I hate launchers, but, if Valve didn’t make the dominant one, someone else would’ve, and I probably wouldn’t be any happier with it.
Maybe in 20 years EGS will be fucking amazing, and when you tell someone you don’t like it because of what they did with Metro, etc., they’ll look at you the way people look at me when I talk about Steam now, lol.
It wasn’t really even exclusives technically. It was explicitly Excluding-Steam exclusives. It released everywhere else but not on Steam. And it was further aggravated by games that were already on Steam being taken off in favor of launching elsewhere.
The reason that it’s so hard to compete with Steam is that Steam just does what it does so well.
I don’t have much desire to change my primary digital storefront because there isn’t really much of anything more I want from a digital storefront that Steam doesn’t already provide. If the quality of Steam’s experience declines at some point, I would welcome competition, but otherwise, why would I bother switching to another service when I don’t really have any complaints about Steam?
Besides, the TV/movie streaming service market has already demonstrated what happens when not enough competition suddenly turns into too much competition. If Epic were able to demonstrate that it was possible to overtake Steam, everyone would try to copycat their strategy, and then you likely end up with a balkanized market where no one has the market share or resources to provide the level of quality that Steam does.
Exactly, Steam got where it is because it managed to be more convenient than piracy (as Gaben himself said, piracy is a service problem), as did Netflix before the fragmentation (and rampant enshittification) of the streaming market made piracy once more the most convenient (and better quality) option.
Epic store exclusives don’t promote Epic, they promote piracy, as that is the second most convenient option after Steam (it’s worth mentioning that Steam also acts as unobtrusive DRM; infect your game with malware like Denuvo and suddenly piracy again becomes the more convenient — even the only reasonable — option, as cracked games perform better and are more stable than malware DRM infected ones; Steam provides a good enough and, more importantly, harmless option for both consumers and developers, something no alternative, including piracy, has managed to achieve).
And, of course, the instant Gaben retires and Valve goes public and begins to enshittify itself we won’t be going to Epic or GOG (unless they manage to replicate what Steam has achieved), we’ll be back to sailing the high seas.
I absolutely love their client and prefer GOG over Steam. I remember how their client GOG Galaxy is highly praised in the developer community, because it is so well designed and runs so performant. It also allows you to play any previous versions of games you own.
What has GOG done for Linux? I care about OSS and companies supporting my preferred OSS operating system. To that end, Valve continues to be a steward without peer.
Yup. For some reason some companies seem to think throwing all your eggs in one franchise basket is a great idea. You would think with all the easy money Fortnite is bringing in, you’d diversify your library of games. Angry Birds developers thought they could ride that thing for 20 years. Sanrio is smarter then that. Hello Kitty is their reliable money maker, but they’re always trying something new.
I think it was more so that they needed those devs on Fortnite to scale it… Then when they got some breathing room to look at other projects, Quake Champions had already released and flopped … as has since Halo Infinite and Diabotical (which Epic partially funded) … AFPS is a genre that isn’t getting much love from consumers.
So, I think Fortnite caused the project to get dropped, but it’s not the reason it wasn’t picked back up. I’d imagine Epic is working on other games, these things just take a while (and they’re going to want bigger profits than they expect UT4 could bring in).
I don’t think Epic is working on other games. If Fortnite wasn’t going to be their only brand, they wouldn’t have delisted Unreal and shutdown the master servers.
Same, I always check whether GOG has a game first, and whether it’s patched up to par. Sadly, surprisingly often while games release on GOG they then lack features (although personally I do not really care about achievements) or worse, the devs give up on releasing patches for the non-Steam versions.
Sadly, surprisingly often while games release on GOG they then lack features
This is almost always a situation that can be pinned on Steam, actually. The games that end up doing this are usually using Steamworks, which essentially forces them into a sort of soft-exclusivity on Steam since their multiplayer features and such can only exist there.
This is almost always a situation that can be pinned on Steam, actually. The games that end up doing this are usually using Steamworks, which essentially forces them into a sort of soft-exclusivity on Steam since their multiplayer features and such can only exist there.
But Steam doesn’t force them to use Steamworks, so I don’t really see “steam’s fault” fault here. Although, of course, it’d be cool if Steamworks would work for non-steam games at least for modding/multiplayer. Granted.
Although, of course, it’d be cool if Steamworks would work for non-steam games at least for modding/multiplayer.
That’s the point. No, nobody’s forcing them to use Steamworks (especially since Epic has rolled out their cross-platform, store-and-OS-agnostic free competitor to it), but anyone who chooses to do so (which is a lot of devs) ends up locking those features to Steam (barring a ton of extra work for themselves) simply because of Valve’s chosen policy.
Don’t think Valve doesn’t understand this. They found a way to get devs to all but lock their games to Steam and thank Valve for the opportunity to do it.
Epic only has a lower cut because they’re leveraging their undoubtedly massive Chinese investments to gain market share. You can rest assured they would charge 30% if they could.
I don’t like that Steam or Apple or Google charge 30%. I think it’s absurd. But also Valve is basically a saint compared to every modern corporation so I don’t think twice about it.
While 30% is high it seems developers consider it acceptable since number of games Steam releases is not reducing. Any one of those developers can decide not to publish on steam and go that way, but in the end I think Valve’s service offers so much exposure that it’s worth considering.
Getting 100% of 1000 sales is not the same amount of money as getting 70% of 30000 sales, especially when it’s a digital distribution where copying bytes costs nothing. Steam also offers bunch of other services as well, things like networking, cloud saves, streaming and similar all of which cost money to maintain.
While 30% is high it seems developers consider it acceptable since number of games Steam releases is not reducing.
Yeah that’s not how that works. Acceptable or not, if you want to sell your games, they have to be on Steam because that’s where people are buying them.
That’s the whole point. If people prefer to buy it on Steam, then that’s it. Forcing people to move away to other store due to exclusive deals and similar means only making people with money more annoyed and more inconvenienced.
Your “point” is shit. Backing people into a corner and then claiming that your choice is “acceptable” because they didn’t go somewhere else is bullshit.
I dreamt once that there was a reliable, non-profit yet well funded community that hosted and distributed games with minimal take in an effort to spread gaming as art and history. They even kept a system agnostic achievement system that retroactively added steam, PlayStation and Xbox achievements in one place with community features.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I have weird dreams, y’all!
valve might be the closest thing i have ever seen to an actual benevolent dictator, even if said dictator is very lazy and only deigns to do anything significant once in a while.
There was a recent update that addressed the back button. Since then, I’ve noticed clicking games in my wishlist and then going back returns me to my scroll position and a few pages that were missing in the back button (like it would back past them) are now there.
I’ve been told there’s been an update for the back button since like a day after the new UI was released. Doesn’t matter whether in Beta or Stable, it’s still broken for me such that I get sent back to the library.
i said valve rather than gabe for a reason, gabe mostly leaves the company to its own devices at this point while he focuses on realizing holodeck technology or whatever the hell he’s doing now.
That’s because you are not in a position to produce and sell a game.
As a user it sure is the case but as a developer you are in a position that you either have to take their 30% cut or accept that you are selling way less
The fact that pretty much immediately after epic launched their store steam lowered the cut for big publishers tells you that they are fully aware that 30% is too much to be reasonable but they completely could get away with that because Devs just didn’t have a choice.
Because of epic that now changed since even if you don’t actually sell more games you at least can get a guaranteed profit as if you sold those games that you miss out on by not being on steam.
Sure the way epic is doing it is not good but I really don’t see another way how a significant number of buyers would ever come to another store. That didn’t work for EA, that didn’t work for Ubisoft, that also didn’t work for GOG where you actually own the game without DRM and not just a license to play it as long as the server is allowing you.
People are fundamentally lazy and hate changing their routines - that’s why forcing them into buying at your store is necessary if you want to get them to switch.
I think you got the whole thing mixed up. Sure Valve takes a huge cut, but if game does poorly Valve earns less as well. So there’s an incentive from both parties to make sure game succeeds. But in the end Valve makes sure you as a consumer get your money’s worth, hence why they even added no questions asked refund policy. Policy which has resulted in more purchases than before, because risk of not liking the game is non-existent now.
Epic on the other hand is forcing users to buy into their ecosystem by way of exclusives. Developers use this to make sure project succeeds even if it’s not good. That is to say they get the money regardless. But this model is not sustainable as Epic has to earn money at some point so number of exclusives will be lower and lower. At the same time they are encouraging developers to not try as hard to polish the game since they get the money regardless.
Fundamentally approaches are completely different and Steam’s approach can’t fail because they cater to customer while Epic is just trying to force people away while offering subpar service. And whoever holds the money holds the power.
It’s a really fascinating market dynamic. Steam is good to consumers, generally speaking, and offers features to that end. Family sharing is the wildest thing imaginable, since it’s formally letting customers share one purchase instead of each making one for two purchases. Their refund policy too is really, really nice.
Valve has effectively chosen to be more enticing to the end user than to the seller. They’ve gathered up so many buyers that it’s foolish for sellers to not set up a shop there. A 30% cut of revenue is hefty, but like you said, that sets up a dynamic where both want the game to succeed. I suspect paying a monthly fee to remain listed on steam would end up worse for everyone.
Because of epic that now changed since even if you don’t actually sell more games you at least can get a guaranteed profit as if you sold those games that you miss out on by not being on steam.
how long do devs think this is sustainable?
to me it seems like devs are trading long term sustainability for short term profitability. sure, your game Cracksnot was profitable because EGS paid out the butt to make it exclusive. now hardly anyone has played your game, how many people are going to get excited about Cracksnot 2 in a few years? will epic still be willing to pay you upfront for Cracksnot 2 exclusivity?
if egs never really takes off (which so far, it hasn’t), eventually epic will cut their losses and stop throwing money at it.
That’s what everyone is doing nowadays. Trading long term “potential” for short term gains. Let’s face it, the earth isn’t gonna last forever, it’d be a neverending hellscape in like what 40 - 50 years. Better to enjoy it while you can by getting the most of what you need right now.
The funny thing is that Valve kickstarted the digital sales with Half Life 2 back in 2004. Steam was an utter piece of shit for, what, some 6 years? It took them a lot of time to make it bearable, then good.
That the EGS launcher is a fucking Unreal app, needlessly bloated as fuck and with barely working UI shows their complete disregard for what is supposed to be their “money givers” (us, customers) and, like every other stupid company with their own launcher which manages to be worse than their fucking website, shows they refuse to learn the obvious.
I fucking hated Valve for making me buy a physical CD of Portal, only to get a CD with the Steam Installer and a code to download the game on their store.
Same thing happened to me but with portal 2. I had DSL at the time and it barely hit 10 Mbps on a good day which was great because I thought the disk had the game on it. Despite all of the pain I still love steam to this day lol (and I’ve gotten better Internet)
I don’t see what people have against Epic, they’re just another company running a storefront, right? Or are they union busters or something?
Any competition that can take on Stream’s monopoly is good, it’s been a long time coming.
You might think Steam are the good guys because they don’t abuse their customers yet, but all good things come to an end, eventually. A company with their level of monopolistic grasp doesn’t remain benign forever.
Valve is a private company so Gabe doesn’t have anyone breathing down his neck to grow endlessly not matter the costs. Also epic refuses to add any half decent consumer features along with buying exclusivity to their platform. Sweeney is also extremely anti linux so why would I give him money.
Steam is pretty good, in many ways. … … There is a little bit of customer abuse creeping in though. It annoys me that I can’t turn off the “what’s new” panel. It’s nothing more than an advertisement panel, and the only options are to say ‘show less’ for individual games, one by one (and even then, it doesn’t stop showing advertisements related to those games).
In any case, I don’t use Epic’s launcher at all; so I won’t try to comment on which is better. I just think it’s good to point out that Steam isn’t perfect, and I agree that competition probably does them some good.
Oh that’s another really good point: Epic trained the consumers to open Epic weekly to get free games, then close it again. It’s a weird thing to be known for.
Sure, had them cornering the sellers market worked out - unrealistic as it was in hindsight - then having the buyers already all have the store installed for the free games would have been a genius way of getting more and more people onto the store. But it did not, and now it has just cemented the Epic store as a place you do not spend money on!
Eh, more competition is good. This opinion is pretty basic.
From memory Epic has improved rates for developers/publishers - why the fuck wouldn’t you want that/just be ok with a base 30% cut because of some shitty ideal?
Epic also tried to datamine their users with literal spyware, their store is shit with no features, they gained market share via exclusivity deals (I shouldn’t need to explain why this is bad, yeah?), their CEO is a POS with horrible takes, Tencent has a large stake in the company… If anything, your opinion is shallow.
Ahh, so you can only have good competitors? It’s either a monopoly (which is only as good as the CEO in charge, and with time will go to shit), or competitors which do the same stuff and play nice?
This is reality. And you get good competition, you get bad, but in general it’s good for the consumer to have options. Fuck it, I’m actually completely happy using Valve for most things and then getting free games from Epic.
The view that a monopoly is better is just extremely short-sighted and naive. Similar to a “We should just have a dictator! This one guy is really good now, what could go wrong in the future?” type thinking.
Hurr durr, a monopoly is bad because the person in charge could become bad, so I’ll actively help this KNOWN bad actor to get a foothold in the market. I am very smart
That a new person to Valve would be equal to Epic, as opposed to massively running Steam into the ground in a significantly worse way. It’d be easy for some dumbass to suggest a subscription service is needed for Steam for example, you need to may $10 a month to support it. Whelp, Steam is now shit.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
There’s no hypocrisy there - it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Perhaps I should turn the argument around - why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
I’m not assuming jack shit. I’m factually stating Valve/Steam are currently great for the gaming industry and Epic is toxic refuse.
This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they’ve done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.
Are my exact words from this very thread.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
Did you think Epic’s financial department had an extended vacation or something? They don’t give a shit that you downloaded the game they made available for free, that was the whole point of their stunt and they were prepared to use money in order to claw some market share.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
And I boycott devs who sell their souls for a quick buck. Darkest Dungeon is one of my favorite games of all time - I still haven’t bought DD2, even though it was made available on Steam after the period of exclusivity elapsed.
it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Except it isn’t. It’s only good to have good faith competition of well behaved market players - Epic does not qualify.
why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
Again a horrible question. Something doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be markedly better than something else. Steam is, right now, no questions asked, infinitely better than Epic. Why support a shitty company that would happily bring everything crumbling down if it meant a quick buck?
Valve is good now so it doesn’t need a competitor? And only when it goes bad should another company exist as competitor? This makes no sense… It’s just not how the world works. Once you have a monopoly it typically stays a monopoly. Look at any of the current monopolies - many are going to shit like Google but there’s no real competition regardless.
You’re also discounting the fact the opposite fact - Epic might be terrible now, but change leadership and its now amazing.
You’re buying way into a very specific case of looking at where things are at now and making a judgement VS. Thinking of longer term ideas like competition is good.
Also, is steam infinitely better than Epic? That’s very debatable, I have no issues with either. To be honest, they’re much of a muchness. You may just be too heavily emotionally invested in these companies. Realistically, they are both just trying to make as much money out of you as they can. For instance, Steams use of their market and giving out digital cards to collect and level up is very predatory.
What spyware? The CEO has been a big advocate for lowering store prices (including Google and Apple stores) to help smaller developers. Their exclusive deals have also helped a lot of developers get their games made. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a game developed these days. Xbox, Sony, Nintendo all have exclusives.
As an indie gamedev, yes, I DO know how hard it is to make a game – I also don’t think getting funding is worth selling your soul for.
They don’t want to lower percentages and prices to “help smaller developers”, but to gain market share. Your brainless whataboutism on consoles is also irrelevant – it’s bad there too. The only acceptable exclusivity is when the company behind the market also happens to develop (not fund) the game.
Look up the concept of loss leading. Do you think Epic are really just doing this for the benefit of developers or are they after something more insidious?
But that’s ok - this is why competition is good. Devs make some more money, consumers get some free games.
Even if Epic ends up only matching Steam then this is a net win for people.
Asking for a monopoly is just short-sighted. Gabe leaves and then the next person in line is some $-hungry mofo who makes terrible decisions and you end up with a shit system. You need competition to keep things in check.
twitter.com
Najstarsze