Epic Games Admits In Court That Its PC Store Still Isn't Profitable

ylai@lemmy.ml to Games@lemmy.world – 805 points –
Epic Games Admits In Court That Its PC Store Still Isn't Profitable
kotaku.com
316

You are viewing a single comment

My launcher shows that I have 379 games from Epic. Not DLC, not demos. Full games.

I have never given Epic a single cent and I never will. (That is to say, until they offer me something that makes me want to use their platform). They have no killer features - AT ALL.

To make it worse, I have all these games, but I still rarely play them. Not that it’s a bad selection, but between steamdeck, gamepass and just a crazy backlog on Steam makes me rarely think of Epic store.

Well that's at the crux of it, indeed. Steam has these killer features that enable and empower me as a gamer.

Then there's Epic that still doesn't have controller support.

Wait, what? No controller support?

That's disingenuous. The games have controller support, as you'd expect them to. EGS itself doesn't have an outside-the-games input layer like Steam Input.

But you can always load up an EGS game in Steam as a non-Steam game and have full access to Steam Input on it that way, so why would Epic spend time and effort re-inventing the wheel when they have other priorities?

But you can always load up an EGS game in Steam as a non-Steam game and have full access to Steam Input on it that way, so why would Epic spend time and effort re-inventing the wheel when they have other priorities?

Why would Epic implement a feature when I could just run Epic games through Steam? Why don't I just use Steam then?

More accurately: the games have support for Xbox styled controllers, because Windows ships with support for that. However, they usually don't have support for PlayStation controllers unless the game actively adds support for them, or Steam Input deals with converting the controller inputs to Xbox format on the fly. Most of the time, Epic exclusives do neither of the above.

Ok cool that makes way more sense.

But.... If I am gonna buy the game elsewhere and then port it into steam, for no discount..... Why not just buy it on steam, and not bother with the extra steps?

And by that I mean, it sounds like a waste of time to buy from epic, since I get more features for the same price elsewhere. So whats such an important priority?

LoL. Yeah I've got a ton and I've never actually launched a single one

I spent about $600 with epic. All of that was on fortnite skins. None of it on games.

Just wow

Hey man, it provided value to my life... its a fun game, i play it quite a bit. Plus half of that was for my kid, he would ask for vbucks every birthday and Christmas for years.

The "killer feature" is that they pay more to the developers, so if you are getting the exact same game on (e.g.) Steam versus Epic Games, then whomever actually made the game gets more money from the Epic sale. Isn't that a good thing?

(Note that I may be conflating the publisher with the developer, but either way, it's still the case that less money is taken by intermediaries, which is a good thing.)

Except they only do that because its the only way to get publishers to use them over steam, and once they have a reliable customer base they will reneg on that generosity to gain profit.

We know this business strategy. It will not stay that way.

Quite likely, but until then...

Until then, what? You as the consumer have no incentive to use their worse service, and publishers clearly arent that enticed by it for how few exclusives the store gets?

Or until then, you want to reward a bait and switch that you know is a bait and switch to try and trick you into using a worse product?

Which option are you excited about here?

Their service is in no way worse: I buy games, and I get them.

I'm excited about the fact that someone provides an alternative to the monopoly that is Steam.

......... The ability to purchase is not the only aspect of a stores service

It's all I need: I buy a game, I download and play it. I don't need anything else.

Ok, and? All you need is water and moldy bread to not die, that doesnt mean water and moldy bread are equivalent in quality to a 3 course meal.

Having a bunch of features that I don't want or need is a waste. The Epic Store and Steam both do exactly what I need, so I don't care about any of whatever the other features are.

So, you dont own any non xbox controllers? Or want to play games properly with friends? Or, hell, want to find a non AAA game? Since epic has way fewer games, and loses a lot of indie darlings?

Correct, correct, not correct (but if they don't sell what I want, then I would buy it elsewhere).

this is how we get companies like walmart and amazon.

they roll in, throwing bags of money into a bottomless pit as long as it takes to amass a large customer base and ruin existing competitors. Then they start enshittifying, and everyone wonders where all the competition went.

No, Steam are the monopoly now! The only other option is Good Old Games and for weird indie titles Itch.io.

That's a reason for developers to use them, not for consumers to use them.

EPICs anti-customer practices (such as trying to make everything exclusive) are reasons for consumers not to use them.

There are tens of thousands of Steam-exclusive games: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_exclusive_to_Steam

What is the alternative to Steam?

And are those because Steam is trying to pressure them into being exclusive on Steam? Or did they just not bother releasing anywhere else?

If a developer just wants to release on Epic and nowhere else they can do that. My issue comes from Epic approaching games that have already announced a Steam release asking for exclusivity, and having no interest in hosting the game if they don't accept the exclusivity offer.

There are almost 40,000 entries, I obviously cannot answer for all of them.

Still waiting for you to answer my question.

Well you sound like someone trying to have a good faith discussion and attempting to continue would be a good use of my time.

What is the alternative to Steam?

As I said.

(The linked article is about Epic)

Exactly. Not having an alternative marketplace--and no other one exists--is anti-customer and yet, you seem to have no problem with a Steam monopoly. Why?

"it exists" is not enough reason to use something.

If I start an online store that charges twice as much as Steam and has none of the features are you going to purchase from it just because It'S cOmPeTiTioN tO StEaM's MoNoPoLy?

Probably not. Do games on the Epic Store cOSt TwIcE aS MucH? Do you routinely buy goods and services with irrelevant features to your needs?

So we agree that it's unreasonable to purchase from a store that provides worse service just because it exists or to "promote competition".

EPICs anti-customer practices (such as trying to make everything exclusive) are reasons for consumers not to use them.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

No, because epic has been engaging in anti consumer practices from the start. This is literally the only category epic has a leg up on steam, and if they didn't need to bully their way into the marketplace, I have no reason to believe they'd treat creators any better than they currently do customers

edit: The revelation that they are running the store at a loss just furthers me not believing they are helping developers from the goodness of their heart, it shows they're likely running the Walmart strategy of using their vast wealth to choke out their competition until there is none, and then once they have a monopoly, jack everything up, which'd probably include their cut of the pie

Note that I may be conflating the publisher with the developer

You think?

Yes, I do, or else I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'd prefer the publisher gets money over a middleman store. Isn't that preferable?

Its a phrase that signals something else, and not a literal content reply.

How about you write what you mean and have quality conversation in the future?

How about you write what you mean

I did. Its a standard phrase used by people in conversation. See defintion #2 below.

Below definition is from here ...

you think

  1. A question one uses at the end of a sentence to express uncertainty. We're not going to get into trouble—you think?
  2. A sarcastic rhetorical question used as a retort when someone states the obvious. A: "Wow, I bet that fire is really hot." B: "You think?"

and have quality conversation in the future?

Quality is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. /shrug

I did.

If you did, then I answered the genuine question you asked.

1 more...
1 more...