Maybe less investment in trying to monopolise the market and more investment in developing their shopping platform so it’s not a smouldering turd.
This is the most asinine approach IMO.
"Let's release a worse product. Hey, no one likes it. Okay, let's spend money on games so THEY can essentially force people to use our software. Hey, still, no one really likes it. Okay, let's try to give away stuff for free. Hey, people use our thing for the free stuff but still no one likes it for any other reason."
They just keep spending money to up their numbers and their product is still missing features and inferior to competition. They spend big money on exclusivity, but that is only temporary - if that's how you're getting your customers, you're going to have to keep doing it forever to retain them. If people only use you for free stuff, you're just going to have to keep giving stuff away at a loss to retain them.
This model is not sustainable. You're not doing anything that aligns value with your customers besides just throwing free stuff at them. That's not a business.
What's especially sad to me is they could literally have just spent that same money to improve their launcher and have an actual product. Instead they've invested in temporary stats. They're essentially bankrolling other devs on games with temporary popularity instead of in their lifelong product.
Using other games exclusivity as sway into your ecosystem only works when you have a good product the person would be interested in but they haven't seen it yet. EGS is currently something people are essentially coerced into using but no one really gets any real value out of it other than "well I couldn't buy this game anywhere else"
Plus it's not like there wasn't room for a good shopping client, if you go smart about it.
Steam had at the time - and still has - tons of bad UI design, stemming for its very old layouts wrangling with newer client additions and changes. Plus Steam for the longest time until the new client solved it had serious issues with late boots and hanging closures. GOG had just tried to bring out their own client a few years before, but in the move to GOG Galaxy had gotten a lot of ire and fucked a lot of things up. All the per-developer clients were berated constantly.
There was room there. But Epic, hell, this is so not it. Your client is so much worse than even the bad competitors...
Steam may suck at extra goodies like streaming but they sure as hell don't suck at selling games. Constant sales, cloud saves, pre-downloads, a solid friend system for co-op games. They nail all the important shit and that's really all that matters to most people.
I think it just depends on how long they can do this. I think they are banking on getting the fortnite kiddies hooked on the store. They typically have far less disposable income (yet they still charge kids for 20$ skins), they will most likely not have a super large steam library (probably due to the aformentioned skins) so they are banking on the store being that kids default to Epic rather than steam. Its not terribly odd since Steam basically did the same thing, when it used to have those mega sales with the flash sales and the such. That is when the love for Steam basically exploded and its been cruising on that hypetrain for a while.
We made the shittiest thing and nobody likes it. We’re all out of ideas.
Yeah, if I'm reading that right they're complaining that they're stuck at phase one of enshitification - lose money on aquiring users. The reason behind that is they're not able to monopolize the market for their games. "These damn mobile stores won't let us turn the corner and put the clamps on our users. Fix it please."
If you count all of Steam’s features (Steam Input, Big Picture Mode, Proton etc), then Epic has decades of catching up to do.
The problem is that usually executives will choose the “easy way out” of problems, so let’s just give free games instead of making a good platform.
Sure isn't profitable from me, I haven't bought shit from them.
That's one interesting thing about this: They trained the players so hard to associate their store with the free weekly giveaways and only the free weekly giveaways, that's all everyone uses the client for now, and never mentally considers it to be usable for anything else.
The effect is pervasive, too. Games factually have not released if they're epic-exclusive. They're not discoverable on PC, as nobody would ever imagine checking the Epic catalogue for a game they're looking for. That's not what you open Epic for, it's those 1-2 free weekly games and nothing else.
In their bid to vie for developers not consumers they went so far too far that they have managed to alienate the concept of "selling games to players" in the consumers' minds, therefor making their store automatically unable to compete at its main intent.
Mind you, there are far more problems with it. Among which is that despite having so little in there, discoverability and navigation are downright terrible! It's an interesting lesson for frontend/UI design I imagine.
This. I visit the site every week to claim the free games. If a game is epic exclusive, I consider it not released yet.
Protip: isthereanydeal.com has an RSS feed which will also alert you to other givaways.
Won't even take their free 'gifts', worse than Origin when it comes to spyware and data collecting. I can't understand anyone who willingly puts EGS on their device but complains about advertisers on other platforms collecting info about them.
Yeah let's not forget this is the client that went through your Steam-installed files on your drive to see what it could offer you.
Free games be damned, I’m not using it while they pay for timed exclusives and limit consumer choice.
Right? Can you imagine what they could have been if they just sold the same games as Steam but tried really hard to just be a really good platform? lol
Because ads are something I dont want to see in general. EGS is something I knowingly use and want on my pc to play games. The choice is what makes it different.
Oh what a suprise.
Maybe... Just maybe...spend some bucks on developing the store to be viable(!) competition to steam. And not just a ghastly shit-shop, where people only exist because of the freebies and partially because of the exclusives (i pirate the exclusives. Fuck exclusives).
Even GOG galaxy is a better client/store and they don't have the same budget.
Epic sucks sweaty, hairy monkeyballs. And i would welcome competition for the apex.
Did they get a shopping cart yet? I remember not being able to buy multiple games at once, but I just gave up on that store so no idea how it is now
They do now, yeah
I started playing Epic Games after support was added on Heroic Games Launcher. But I ain't spending money on them because there's no guarantee it will still be working tomorrow.
I do through playnite. Using their own launcher for anything else than playing a game is horrible
I get the free games via the site but I dont use windows so I've never even tried to play them. I'd rather support valve who have really went all in on Linux gaming.
I know it is possible to get some of epic ones working via lutris but I'm not that bothered to be honest.
For anyone interested in running epic games on linux, try heroic launcher.
Using dishonest tactics to claw away market share won't work with gamers. Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.
Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.
Well, eventually.
When Steam was first released, the running joke was "steaming pile of shit". It was slow, unreliable and only a couple of shades of green away from the worst color in the world. People complained about the birth of "always online" games and about paying full price but not even getting a box with it.
It's not exactly unassailable now either. It's my platform of choice as a user but for indie developers, the 30% cut is brutal and last I used it, the Steamworks SDK was pretty rough. The app itself also has a lot of legacy bloat like a built in MP3 player.
It's ahead of the rest but I think "good will, good prices and good features" might be an overly romantic take on "it's where all my games already are".
the 30% cut is brutal
This part always confuses me. When Steam started allowing non-Valve games on their storefront, 30% was considered a bargain compared to selling your games at retail. In fact, PC versions of games were often $10 cheaper than their console counterparts specifically because distribution and platform fees were lower. It wasn't until MW2 came out that PC prices started reflecting console prices.
It’s confusing to you that manufacturing, shipping, and selling physical copies of a game was more expensive than digital distribution? The world is very different today. Digital distribution is the norm and everybody knows you don’t need 30% to make it sustainable.
It’s confusing to you that manufacturing, shipping, and selling physical copies of a game was more expensive than digital distribution?
That is not what is confusing to me.
Digital distribution is the norm and everybody knows you don’t need 30% to make it sustainable.
Simply sustaining your existing platform is also not enough. Where Epic runs a barebones storefront and client with little in the way of useful features beyond "download game and keep it updated", storefronts like GOG and Steam take their actual profit and re-invest it in improving their platform for everyone. Think of all the time and money that goes into making things like Steam Input, Proton, or even GOG themselves fixing up older games for modern PCs.
The fact that it has been 5 years and Epic still hasn't been able to make their 12% cut break even speaks volumes.
Epic’s 12% doesn’t do much because they’re constantly burning money trying to find more revenue. It’s obvious they’re not doing anything efficiently. They also have far fewer sales than Steam which further hurts their bottom line.
The standard internet payment processors take 3% as their cut.
With modern cloud systems we can quickly distribute files globally for tiny amounts of money.
The truth is that Valve makes a ton of money off of this fee. It’s great that they contribute to open source projects but plenty of companies make similar contributions with a fraction of the resources.
I still remember being annoyed I suddenly needed to get a separate app just to continue playing counter strike.
Ah yeah, I was a bit of a hold out going to 1.6, but eventually all the servers started disappearing. That was like ~8 years ago.. right?
Na homie that was almost 10 years ago.
Valve is constantly looking for ways to help the customer, just in their own weird ass way. Having linux as a competitive option to windows and being able to refund/return digital games, as well as a built in mod searcher and loader being some of the things they brought to the platform because Valve employees themselves are gamers and want their platform to be useful towards gamers needs
Refunding/returning digital games is an outcome of a lawsuit if I remember correctly
I think they do hell the consumer. And agree it's weird. But would argue against that being their goal with the caveat that what I'm about to say makes no real difference to anything.
I think they're looking to increase profits first and foremost. However, because they're not answerable to shareholders, they understand that the best way to do this is by building loyalty and ensuring "stickiness" loyalty. ¹
It's still about money. They just understand that the safest way to make it is by having a long term view and not burning people.
I think its both tbh. Money is certainly a factor, we live in a Capatalist society, the more money you have, the more you can do and influence, so even companies with the best of intentions will focus on profits. But with the shit Valve does, like the Steam Deck being a Linux machine (and thus open source), and working through the legal hassle of designing and making developers agree to digital item returns/refunds, I'm thoroughly convinced Valve generally does just want to make the gaming scene better as well because the employees themselves are also gamers
I think they just understand whatost executibes are too greedy / shit sighted / stupid to understand. Doing what's right for consumers drives revenue. It can be good for the consumer and motivated by profit. They're not mutually exclusive.
the 30% cut is brutal
Reportedly Epic's 12% barely covers costs and would not if they included transaction fees. 20% seems to be the bare minimum if you want a store to actually have good service, and then I'm giving Valve additional credit for sinking boatloads of money into general infrastructure, in the long term Proton alone is worth those 10%. Much unlike the rest of the stores (exception GOG) which take the same 30% and are run by humongous multinationals.
...and then there's itch.io. If you're a small and scrappy indie very much an option: They're also small and scrappy. And they'll probably shout at you if you try to upload a 20G game I very much doubt their servers would survive an AAA launch. OTOH, reportedly their average revenue split is 8% (customers can choose).
The difference is that Steam sells a ton of copies every single day. The vast majority of Valve's fortune has come from that fee. People jump to defend Steam but it’s already been established by lawsuits against other major corporations that a 30% cut is mostly driven by greed.
The 30% cut was industry standard for digital distribution for years. Google, Apple, and numerous other players all took 30% as standard.
That being said, Steam hasn't taken a flat 30% for years now - their standard agreement starts at 30%, decreases to 25% after the first $10m in sales, then decreases further to 20% after $50m.
Furthermore, Valve has done more in terms of providing services, APIs/libraries, and end-user features (all with no additional fee to the developers or consumers) than any other game storefront has. I'd say they more than justify their cut.
Industry standard by massive corporations synonymous with corporate greed. Boy am I glad the fee decreases after $10m in sales. That will go a long way with helping out indie devs.
It’s okay to like Steam because they’ve provided us with a good way of purchasing and playing games. I like Steam but we don’t have defend things that are obviously greedy.
"it’s where all my games already are."
My pet theory is this was realized by epic and so the only reason they give games away is to "help" users build a library they won't want to "leave behind" for another store platform. Once they reach the market share they were aiming for I fully expect the practice to stop.
Moreover, just like that guy, Epic thinks that's the only thing that matters, or at least the biggest issue. The idea that gamers might not use them because their service is actually just worse seems to have never crossed their minds in any serious fashion.
If that was true, EA would have been dead in the water 12 years ago.
Didn't EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?
Remember Valve is the company and Steam is the storefront/launcher.
Epic is the company, EGS is the storefront/launcher.
EA is the company, Origin is (was?) the storefront/launcher.
Didn’t EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?
Technically no. EA now just calls it "The EA App"
If Mass Effect Legendary Edition actually included ME3's multiplayer I might've considered installing Origin again.
Nope. Star Wars Squadrons (which I got from Epic, BTW) required me to download and install Origin first. I'd be salty as fuck about that if all parties involved hadn't already guaranteed that it was a game that I was never going to pay for anyway.
Yeah, making it a requirement for playing your physical copy of Half-Life definitely looks like good will to me.
And in turn diminished the industry's piracy problm for many years, making PC Games market a stable ecosystem instead of letting all of PC gaming die.
No? Cracks were created for that too
Yes? How can you possibly deny that? Steam was able to claw a market in russia, a country famous for piracy. Gaben was right, convenience with good prices trumps everything.
Sure, cracks still exist, but I've stopped downloading them in favour of buying off Steam because the user experience was a lot better. I'm sure I can't be the only one to do this.
Before Steam existed i would even crack games I had legitimate copies of solely because pre-Steam DRM was such an enormous pain in the ass to deal with.
Even today Denuvo is a veritable paradise compared to what DRM used to be like.
I was up for a Steam competitor. I signed up for the Epic store a few years back. Tried to get the first free game. It wasn't available in my region despite being plastered all over the store in my region. The exact same thing happened the next month. Both of those games were available on Steam in my region at some pretty low prices by then.
Then, Epic started paying for exclusivity, making games not available in my region at all. I had at least deleted their stupid app by then anyway. Fuck Epic entirely.
Used to have similar problem with Steam back in the day.
Edit: I like how some people disagree that i experienced something by downvote. It's not like i can change it or something 😅 👌
I don't doubt it, but I've been a pretty regular user since 2009, and I've never had a game advertised to me on the front page that wasn't available in my region. In fact, there are games I want that I know aren't available on Steam here, and the only way to get to the Steam page for them is by using a proxy or VPN. I definitely can't buy them with my account. It seems pretty amateurish of Epic to advertise unavailable games and to even let me click "buy" before telling me I can't buy it. Maybe they've fixed that by now, but whatever. The paid exclusivity bullcrap showed me where their priorities lie.
There are mistakes being done unintentionally when you develop complex software.
Take my example, Humble showed me Bandai Namco game that I could not even get in a bundle. So out of 10 games, I received 9, while other regions receive 10.
That is even worse than Epic's (probably honest) mistake.
Humble isn't trying to compete with Steam or Epic, and they don't engage in the anti-consumer practice of paying off developers for exclusive access to games.
I'm aware of the complexities of software development. If Epic seriously wanted to compete with Steam, they really should have tried harder to provide a better service instead of trying to buy loyalty through free games and exclusivity contracts.
It's not amaterish anymore than GOG or Steam giving out free games back in the day. Even before it used to be magazines with free games on CDs. I still have these games in my libraries. It's widely used strategy by bigger business to start new departments or even child companies. It's why they say money makes money.
It's amateurish that their store advertised games to me that were unavailable to me. I'm no code whiz, but it can't be that hard to chuck in an if (region == false) then !advertise; Valve and GOG don't seem to have any problems with that.
I have no issue with them giving away free games. Too bad that and the paid exclusives don't earn them a loyal customer base. Maybe if they'd put more effort into their store. Like maybe not advertising region locked games to regions where they're not available.
That part i agree. It's not that unrealistic with their budget .
Shocking literally no one, the game store that took a shot at the king with store that (initially) didn't have baseline stuff like reviews and a cart, and tried to get by on giving away product and paying a bunch of money to make stuff exclusive isn't doing so hot financially.
On one hand, thanks to the nonstop giveaways, I have way more games on Epic than I do on Steam, so I have a reason to continue using Epic.
On the other hand, Epic's launcher runs like shit, constantly refreshes my library page, slow as hell, glitchy as hell, and makes me feel dirty when I use it.
Steam is just so cozy and is on the whole a much more enjoyable PC gaming experience. I imagine 95% of Epic users are people like me: sign in on Thursdays for the free game and then bounce.
Have you tried Heroic Games Launcher?
I know about its existence, but I'm not sure how safe is it as a way to prevent Epic (and potentially Tencent) from tracking my personal information.
they have no excuse for it to be slow as shit
I talked to their support about the library force refresh and it's apparently intended. That library refresh is literally the only reason the EGS isn't open all the time like Steam is. Random data usage is bad, and can fuck off. I do not need random lag spikes.
thanks to the nonstop giveaways, I have way more games on Epic than I do on Steam
I still have more games on Steam, however, Itch.io has had a couple of insane bundles in the last couple of years, which mean I have way more games and content on Itch than on Steam, which I did not see coming. I still use Steam the most, though, because I'm used to their interface and it works really well on Linux.
Valve has not optimized big library, so me with 4k games and good computer but Steam performs like PoS.
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.
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.
EGS losing money has been great for gamers, as they continue to give away free games in an attempt to claw any marketshare. Gamers continue to win as long as this situation lasts. But reading these comments, nobody seems to recognize this.
Gamers lose when the store shuts down and you lose access to all of the games you got for free, or worse actually paid for.
Many of the games are DRM-free, as evidenced on PCGamingWiki.
I actually didn't know this. Fuckin eh!
Yeah but Unreal Tournament goes back on the shelf
ESG losing money is great for me just on principle, Tim Sweeney can go fuck himself.
Tencent is a despicable company
Consumers also won when a Walmart would open up in their neighborhood and run the local stores out of business by selling everything at a loss.
Of course, once the competition was eliminated, Walmart stopped selling things at a loss.
Epic Games launcher/store is nothing more than Tencent spyware using "free games" as bait and masquerading as a Steam competitor.
If you haven't tried a linux distro since the release of the SteamDeck, I highly recommend you give gaming on linux a shot.
Gotta love the diehard linux users promoting their preferred OS on a topic even slightly related.
Man, I enjoy Linux too, but I cannot see how its related to the post.
Having been on Linux for over a year now, I don't. It's still plagued by instability, weird bugs, and big limitations whenever non-Steam games are involved.
You mean games that arent available in steam at all, vor those which you haven't bought there?
I found the easiest workaround for me was to simply add the games to my steam library and to launch it from there. Then I don't have to worry about what proton version I should use or whatnot.
Which destro would you recommend? I'm kind of sick of Windows.
Fedora with "Dash to Panel" and the "Applications Menu" make the GUI identical to Windows. That would be a good start :)
Or just use KDE instead of Gnome. It's such a terrible DE anyway.
If you want a Couch Gaming Station I recommend you to look at ChimeraOS. Linux first that boots directly to Stream Big Picture (since it's based on SteamOS) and it supports emulators and Epic Game Store.
On my old i5-8700T with qUHD630 it pretty much was a install, reboot, login to Steam and start playing.
My Wireless Xbox Controller USB dongle was plug'n'play.
Nobara has, for me, been the most plug and play no headache distro I've touched, ever.
What brand of graphics card do you have? If it's Nvidia Pop!_OS will likely work best. If you have an AMD card I've heard good things about EndeavorOS.
Also, feel free to shop around for a desktop environment (DE) you like, which controls the look and how things are organized. While distros have a default, it's pretty easy to swap them. I personally use KDE Plasma (the same DE the Steam Deck uses) with Pop!_OS
Thanks for the tip but no
How's the performance on Nvidia cards? Most benchmarks that I saw are people using AMD cards.
NVIDIA is a one-line command to install and setup the drivers.
For me? Most of my games run better on Linux.
Such as CSGO, which is why I initially switched.
I generally prefer AMD, how are they for Linux?
Great! You don’t even need to install any drivers. It just works.
Also some distros like Pop!_OS just have it included and automatically update them
What does this have to do with the Epic store?
Not worth the hassle but you do you. Keep fighting the good fight.
Keep fighting the good fight.
And it really is the good fight in this case. I've been running Linux on my gaming PC for around four years with very little trouble. Games from Epic and GOG run very well(for me at least) through Heroic Games Launcher. I've been using Windows for work on/off the last couple of years, but especially since they "upgraded" to Windows 11, it's such a relief to come home to Linux.
Sorry, I'll wait some more. I tried two times getting back to Linux as I see the potential. It didn't work. I'm gonna stick to windows until some problems will be fixed, or Microsoft further enshittifies itself.
I have no idea why this is newsworthy. Epic's own 2019 documents and testimony in the Apple trial showed that the company did not expect the store to be profitable until 2024 or even 2027. The strategy of heavy investment and operating at a loss to turn a profit later worked for Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, and many others. Even this week, there are headlines like "Elon Musk Says SpaceX's Starlink Achieves Breakeven Cash Flow".
Spotify has never turned a profit, at least not yearly.
That could be true, making it an even stronger argument.
But all the other companies had in mind something else besides "gotta beat the other guys" and actually brought something to the table.
You can't deny that Epic taking 12% revolutionized the industry, with Microsoft following suit and even Valve making some small changes. As Gabe himself said on the competition, "it keeps [them] honest". That's a win for game creators.
For the gamers, we got many free games and I think the Epic freebies inspired Microsoft to offer similar deals with Game Pass, Amazon with Prime, and even GOG recently gave away a pretty notable game, Blacksad, which was uncharacteristic in relation to their past giveaways.
Pretty sure all those were offering games with their subscriptions long before Epic store was a thing.
But, on the other hand, every other thing they did outweighs the rest - exclusivity, shitty launcher, and spyware.
I am also not sure if any game given away by Amazon Prime really interested me at all.
I have a crazy idea for Epic. Instead of paying a fortune for exclusives, leverage the lower 12% cut and have game publishers sell for less (so that the publisher makes the same amount on Steam and Epic)
And GOG. They used to have several games up there, and then delisted them.
Publishers sets their own prices though.
So why can't they sell their game for $56 on Epic and $70 on Steam? They'd make about the same money per sale on each?
Are you seriously asking why a company in a capitalist economy would keep more money for themselves?
Most likely reason, contracts.
Example Nike sales shoes directly at the same price as footlocker. Why dont they under cut footlocker? They have a contracts that says they won't under cut footlocker
There could br an issue like that but well you can make new contracts
But price disparities already exist in other places sometimes. Like YT premium using the App store (due to the 30% cut) and everywhere else.
it depends on what the contracts say
Valve prohibit that, according to the lawsuit filed by Wolfire Games.
There's no way that can be legal. I generally support Valve but that is monopolistic as hell.
That only applies to the steam keys valve supplies to developers that have a 0% cut.
Also doing regional pricing would be a massive headache if that were true due to different stores having different recommended price conversions.
The claim specifically mentions Epic and quotes a Valve employee who made statements to the effect of it being prohibited, irrespective of whether a Steam key is involved. Read from page 47 and pay attention to the last paragraphs of page 55.
What do you mean by this?
doing regional pricing would be a massive headache if that were true
Aren't games regionally priced like forever ? I've buying key's in GB because they are cheaper. Also Doesn't steam lock you out of your games if you bought US version and travel to the other side of the world? I just vaguely remember people complaining about it.
No and no.
The time lock lasts 3 months, not forever.
I'm pretty much sure that they had 60$ = 60€ kind of regional prices.
If the developer chooses to do so themselves then it's likely ok, but forcing the developer to do so likely violates some sort of law.
I imagine that when Epic instituted it's lower percentage they hoped that developers would sell exclusively on their platform for higher profits. Instead the developers decided to sell on both platforms and just make a larger percentage on the Epic sales. From the developer perspective it would have been wise in the long run to lower prices so that Epic could grow, but that hurts their short term profits and also stymied Epic's potential.
If Epic's store grew to truly rival Steam more developers might have jumped ship, but to do so prematurely would be losing a large portion of the potential customers.
Ultimately Epic had to develop a full Steam clone quickly while all Steam had to do was not suck for the end user.
Why would the developer sell at a loss to help Epic out? What's in it for the developer?
Well it shouldn't be at a loss. As the person I responded to pointed out, Epic had a lower fee than Steam so the developer can sell on Epic for less than they would on Steam and make the same amount of money.
Doing so wouldn't be at a loss, but it wouldn't make as much profit as possible.
If the developers did choose to sell on Epic for less than it would bolster the Epic store and potentially lead to more people moving to Epic.
If Steam's fee is 30% and Epic's is 15% the developer could sell on Steam for $70 and make $49 and they could sell on Epic for $60 to make $51. That's a 4% increase in profits.
If the Epic store takes off and a large enough user base switches they could maybe increase the Epic price to $62.5 which would result in an additional 4% increase in profits.
Epic's deal is that they're offering a lower rate, but the developers aren't sharing the benefits of that to help Epic grow. If they did the long term profits would likely exceed the short term.
Again, why would the developer care about making Epic grow? It's the store's responsibility to offer good service, you don't see Nintendo trying to help out Target or anything like that now do ya?
hing like that now do ya?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand. If you don't understand I'd be happy to elaborate.
Basically what I'm saying is, there is no reason for the developer to try to help a specific storefront, the developer does not work for the storefront, the developers that release games on Epic are just as much a customer of the store as, well, the customer.
If Epic has a shit storefront, the correct answer isn't to give it a lower price there to "Help Epic grow", the correct answer is "Well we'll just focus on selling it on GOG, Humble Bundle, and Steam"
It is unrealistic to expect or even ask for a developer to give Epic special treatment without proper cause "Just to be nice", not how the business world works.
We see this all the time offline, or rather, we don't see it... At no point did Nintendo, Sega, or anyone go "Oh no Toys R Us and KMart are facing tough times, we should lower our prices for those stores to help em out."
Now if it was a developer with actual stake in Epic, maybe they'd do that.. but I don't see Sweeney handing out large amounts of Epic stock to anyone do you?
Slightly edited for clarity
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I'm not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they'll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
I'd argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn't really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn't a customer in that sense because they aren't buying and reselling the product.
Yeah, the developers can say fuck it and not help out Epic, but it just furthers the limited monopoly that Steam is. They can't complain that Steam takes too big of a cut and then make businesses decisions that are counter to that complaint. It's like complaining about Reddit but choosing to stay there.
I would agree that Epic is a customer in the sense that they are paying for exclusivity, but I think that contract should also include a reduced sale price in it.
EX: Epic pays the developer X dollars so that the first week of the release it's sold at -Y% of the MSRP exclusively on Epic. After that they can sell it on other storefronts for the MSRP for Z months (with no sales) or they have to refund the X dollars.
I’d argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn’t really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn’t a customer in that sense because they aren’t buying and reselling the product.
No, you misunderstand what I mean. I'm saying the DEVELOPER of the GAMES is a customer of Epic, what's Epic selling? Store space in exchange for a cut of the profits. There is no reason for a customer to want to help out a business, they don't have a stake in the company.
If McDonalds is having a hard time, I don't pay them double for cheeseburgers to "help em out", I say "Sucks to be you, but hey we still have a Wendy's."
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I’m not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they’ll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
Except they're still making money selling on Steam, GOG, and Humble Bundle.... There's really nothing in it for them if Epic succeeds and nothing of value lost if Epic shrivels up and dies.
No, you misunderstand what I mean.
Ah I see, you're correct, I did misunderstand you. I think your point is true, but still lacks finesse in describing the relationship between developers and digital store fronts. I also think you're disregarding the benefit that the additional 18% cut the developer gets to keep as well as creating partnership options rather than being stuck with a defacto monopoly.
I also don't think it's fair to compare GOG or Humble Bundle with Epic or Steam, their purposes and market share is so much smaller than Steam. Epic isn't trying to compete with GOG or Humble.
Also, you're correct that the developer is making money either way, but they are making a larger percentage on sales through Epic. You're probably right that the developers aren't taking that into account, but they are materially benefited by its success. If they fail to account for that benefit and Epic fails then it will mean they make less money overall.
I think instead of your McDonalds example a better one would be contractors for a large business. Maybe your business frequently uses an electrical contractor and due to special circumstances the field is exceptionally limited (specialty license or security clearance). There is one contractor available and they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want. So far this company has been really fair and not abused their power, but a new contractor becomes available. The new contractor has an inferior service line and is a bit slower, but they're also cheaper. You could just ignore the new contractor and what happens happens, but in the real world it's fairly common for businesses to diversify service contracts to maintain a pool of available contractors.
Epic paid $146 to make borderlands exclusive to epic. The game kind of flopped.
Completely untrue. It was a major success and brought record numbers of new customers to the store, which is the main metric pursued by Epic.
I might actually buy a game of the app didn't constantly sign me out.
I know, right! The "Remember Me" option does absolutely nothing ffs
Would you though
I've already purchased a few, tbh
Seems to me that the most lucrative thing in gaming is still just making really good games.
Sure, there's Steam, but that's a fluke. The exception that proves the rule. Just get back to actual game making.
But you have to give Valve credit for supporting Linux gaming witch if gets popular enough will create perfect competition for Windows. imagine system that requires 1GB or RAM instead of 4-5GB when idle , that doesn't spy on you and is more secure. Perfect for gaming IMHO if taken seriously.
Windows PC gamers and Xbox gamers are more or less the only ones who game on non-*Nix kernels; PlayStation is BSD-derived, Switch is BSD+Android, Steam Deck is of course Linux, a lot of arcade cabinets run on Debian. Gaming on non-Windows platforms is absolutely viable, it's just being hidden from players by a thin layer of customization.
yes it is, in fact it would be much better experience if properly supported if nothing else because Linux can be modyfied into anything, though free community driven Linux is preferable to Sony's closed system.
I mean, Steam is owned by Valve, and they make some pretty good games. Half-Life, Portal are some of the best series out there. I recently played HL Alyx and it was a banger.
Is it actually not profitable or is this one of those tax writeoff bullshit things where it makes them money in some indirect way
Most likely actually non profitable. With crapton of Chinese cash, they can keep paying studios more of a cut than Steam, giveaway games, pay for exclusivity. Their goal right now isn't to make money, but to take market share
Would that be because it is still a pale imitator not remotely competitive with steam?
Doesn't need to be profitable, when they're just rolling around in Fortnite money wondering what to spend it on.
then why they layoff like 10% of their staff recently?
Because they're greedy?
Well they're not gonna cut top salaries, can't have any of that, it's bad for business!! Imagine being able to only afford one yacht instead of your standard three! Gotta let those lackeys at the bottom of the pyramid go, what're they even holding up, anyway? The foundation of the company? Surely not.
because profit + 10% of salary > profit
It's the hip new tech company trend to help keep wages and salaries down.
Everyone (in big tech at least) has. Just didn't want to feel left out.
Shouldn't have bought Mediatonic either.
Whether its games stores or streaming services, the media seems to constantly miss the obvious, lack of accounted profits means no tax to pay.....
Only way epic can compete, even with bloody ubisoft launcher, is to remove competition. Improving their store just isnt part of their business plan, if it was they would do it.
And it'll never be.
I had epic game store before they started blasting free games for unreal tournament. That was a fun alpha and was excited to see what it was going to evolve into. Guess not now lol
Fortnite killed that and I'm still bitter about it
Well yeah, of course it isn't profitable, when it's damn near malicious in how they treat their customers it's not surprising.
Never bought anything there and probably never will, but I'm always there every thursday to get the free games.
Heavy gog and steam user, and gamepass subscriber.
I mean, it’s trying to compete against Steam. A platform which has 99% of the games ever released on PC after its inception at the same price and with a great interface.
You’re not winning against that unless you actually sell the same games at a lower price (and I don’t think they can afford to do that)
It would help if their service itself wasn't just objectively worse, but they're not even trying to compete on quality. Their only selling points are free games and platform exclusives. It's like they haven't even tried to actually make a better service.
So like xbox and Xbox live but without the Xbox lol
Also you can't trust epic. They have been caught scraping user data and they negotiate shitty deals which actually harm users on the PC platform overall. Fuck epic.
I wonder if GOG is profitable?
Do you guys think e.g. YouTube or redshit is profitable despite of what they say and without "profit" that's pumped in by investors or mother companies?
it's just a business,
They get market share by loosing profit then once they are establish enough so most people won't leave if they change things and they change things and start to make profit.
At least that's the plan.
Google's goal with YouTube was never profit. Had it been YT would end up on Google graveyard long time ago. They are looking for market dominance with video streaming which in turn provides a lot of useful data for mining. Ads are there to curb price of whole ordeal a bit.
I wish I had an adblock for the epic launcher.
Just use the Heroic launcher
The only time I paid for anything on epic was Kingdom Hearts and that's only because I've wanted a PC Version for 20 years
I'm still holding out for a Steam release. I refuse to play it elsewhere.
Whatever happens Beyond this morning is a little later on. By that I mean I would expect it within the next couple of months
Whoa, I've been waiting years for this. What makes you think it will happen soon?
Typically exclusivity contracts for epic last like a year, and I know that the Final Fantasy 7 remake was brought over. And that used to be epic exclusive. From what I understand though, the main problem is disney, any decisions that have to be made with Kingdom Hearts have to go through disney.
Kingdom Hearts dropped on Epic in March '21. Maybe we'll see it on Steam in March '24?
Bye Felecia
Good.
That's really sad. I like Unreal Engine a lot, I hope it doesn't suffer from this.
I imagine Unreal Engine is likely what keeps that store open. That and Fortnite.
I was upset when Epic acquired Rocket League and drove it into the ground, and then I was pissed when Epic paid for exclusivity on ubisoft games. I bought one game on Epic game stores app two years ago and have since claimed every free game they offer every week whether I care to play it or not. I have also repurchased that game on Steam, so literally the only time I even open epic games is to claim the weekly free game and cost them money.
Epic has exclusivity on all Ubisoft games? I stopped buying Ubi games years ago, so I guess that's fine with me. I hope Ubisoft loses money on that deal.
I don't LIKE the epic games store, but it is kind of fucking strange, that valve is a company whose literal monopoly is not only not questioned, but specifically celebrated.
Yeah cuz they doing it right
For now... Except for all the showelware, and OS support of "the current" one...
Haha
I recently played hitman 3 with Lutris on Kubuntu in Epicstore.
Sync was working well. Game was running well.
It is not Steam (which has a native Linux installation), but at least it works.
If the price is the same I go with steam, if epic is much cheaper I go with epic.
Lucky you, that you managed to make Epic run properly over Linux!
It was really straightforward to be honest. But I did it 2 weeks ago.
Maybe 6-12 months ago was more difficult.
I installed Lutris
I opened it, then installed epic store
Then I logged in and installed hitman.
To play I have to open lutris > epic store > hitman 3.
Maybe less investment in trying to monopolise the market and more investment in developing their shopping platform so it’s not a smouldering turd.
This is the most asinine approach IMO.
"Let's release a worse product. Hey, no one likes it. Okay, let's spend money on games so THEY can essentially force people to use our software. Hey, still, no one really likes it. Okay, let's try to give away stuff for free. Hey, people use our thing for the free stuff but still no one likes it for any other reason."
They just keep spending money to up their numbers and their product is still missing features and inferior to competition. They spend big money on exclusivity, but that is only temporary - if that's how you're getting your customers, you're going to have to keep doing it forever to retain them. If people only use you for free stuff, you're just going to have to keep giving stuff away at a loss to retain them.
This model is not sustainable. You're not doing anything that aligns value with your customers besides just throwing free stuff at them. That's not a business.
What's especially sad to me is they could literally have just spent that same money to improve their launcher and have an actual product. Instead they've invested in temporary stats. They're essentially bankrolling other devs on games with temporary popularity instead of in their lifelong product.
Using other games exclusivity as sway into your ecosystem only works when you have a good product the person would be interested in but they haven't seen it yet. EGS is currently something people are essentially coerced into using but no one really gets any real value out of it other than "well I couldn't buy this game anywhere else"
Plus it's not like there wasn't room for a good shopping client, if you go smart about it.
Steam had at the time - and still has - tons of bad UI design, stemming for its very old layouts wrangling with newer client additions and changes. Plus Steam for the longest time until the new client solved it had serious issues with late boots and hanging closures. GOG had just tried to bring out their own client a few years before, but in the move to GOG Galaxy had gotten a lot of ire and fucked a lot of things up. All the per-developer clients were berated constantly.
There was room there. But Epic, hell, this is so not it. Your client is so much worse than even the bad competitors...
Steam may suck at extra goodies like streaming but they sure as hell don't suck at selling games. Constant sales, cloud saves, pre-downloads, a solid friend system for co-op games. They nail all the important shit and that's really all that matters to most people.
I think it just depends on how long they can do this. I think they are banking on getting the fortnite kiddies hooked on the store. They typically have far less disposable income (yet they still charge kids for 20$ skins), they will most likely not have a super large steam library (probably due to the aformentioned skins) so they are banking on the store being that kids default to Epic rather than steam. Its not terribly odd since Steam basically did the same thing, when it used to have those mega sales with the flash sales and the such. That is when the love for Steam basically exploded and its been cruising on that hypetrain for a while.
We made the shittiest thing and nobody likes it. We’re all out of ideas.
Yeah, if I'm reading that right they're complaining that they're stuck at phase one of enshitification - lose money on aquiring users. The reason behind that is they're not able to monopolize the market for their games. "These damn mobile stores won't let us turn the corner and put the clamps on our users. Fix it please."
If you count all of Steam’s features (Steam Input, Big Picture Mode, Proton etc), then Epic has decades of catching up to do. The problem is that usually executives will choose the “easy way out” of problems, so let’s just give free games instead of making a good platform.
Sure isn't profitable from me, I haven't bought shit from them.
That's one interesting thing about this: They trained the players so hard to associate their store with the free weekly giveaways and only the free weekly giveaways, that's all everyone uses the client for now, and never mentally considers it to be usable for anything else.
The effect is pervasive, too. Games factually have not released if they're epic-exclusive. They're not discoverable on PC, as nobody would ever imagine checking the Epic catalogue for a game they're looking for. That's not what you open Epic for, it's those 1-2 free weekly games and nothing else.
In their bid to vie for developers not consumers they went so far too far that they have managed to alienate the concept of "selling games to players" in the consumers' minds, therefor making their store automatically unable to compete at its main intent.
Mind you, there are far more problems with it. Among which is that despite having so little in there, discoverability and navigation are downright terrible! It's an interesting lesson for frontend/UI design I imagine.
This. I visit the site every week to claim the free games. If a game is epic exclusive, I consider it not released yet.
Protip: isthereanydeal.com has an RSS feed which will also alert you to other givaways.
Won't even take their free 'gifts', worse than Origin when it comes to spyware and data collecting. I can't understand anyone who willingly puts EGS on their device but complains about advertisers on other platforms collecting info about them.
Yeah let's not forget this is the client that went through your Steam-installed files on your drive to see what it could offer you.
Free games be damned, I’m not using it while they pay for timed exclusives and limit consumer choice.
Right? Can you imagine what they could have been if they just sold the same games as Steam but tried really hard to just be a really good platform? lol
Because ads are something I dont want to see in general. EGS is something I knowingly use and want on my pc to play games. The choice is what makes it different.
I got Death Stranding...
...It was free. The Epic client runs under Bottles in its own isolated sandbox, so it can't spy on me.
If it's free it's for me, if you have to pay no way.
They had some amazing coupons a few years ago, I remember buying Jedi: Fallen Order for like $4 USD
Oh what a suprise. Maybe... Just maybe...spend some bucks on developing the store to be viable(!) competition to steam. And not just a ghastly shit-shop, where people only exist because of the freebies and partially because of the exclusives (i pirate the exclusives. Fuck exclusives).
Even GOG galaxy is a better client/store and they don't have the same budget.
Epic sucks sweaty, hairy monkeyballs. And i would welcome competition for the apex.
Did they get a shopping cart yet? I remember not being able to buy multiple games at once, but I just gave up on that store so no idea how it is now
They do now, yeah
I started playing Epic Games after support was added on Heroic Games Launcher. But I ain't spending money on them because there's no guarantee it will still be working tomorrow.
I do through playnite. Using their own launcher for anything else than playing a game is horrible
I get the free games via the site but I dont use windows so I've never even tried to play them. I'd rather support valve who have really went all in on Linux gaming.
I know it is possible to get some of epic ones working via lutris but I'm not that bothered to be honest.
For anyone interested in running epic games on linux, try heroic launcher.
Using dishonest tactics to claw away market share won't work with gamers. Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.
Well, eventually.
When Steam was first released, the running joke was "steaming pile of shit". It was slow, unreliable and only a couple of shades of green away from the worst color in the world. People complained about the birth of "always online" games and about paying full price but not even getting a box with it.
It's not exactly unassailable now either. It's my platform of choice as a user but for indie developers, the 30% cut is brutal and last I used it, the Steamworks SDK was pretty rough. The app itself also has a lot of legacy bloat like a built in MP3 player.
It's ahead of the rest but I think "good will, good prices and good features" might be an overly romantic take on "it's where all my games already are".
This part always confuses me. When Steam started allowing non-Valve games on their storefront, 30% was considered a bargain compared to selling your games at retail. In fact, PC versions of games were often $10 cheaper than their console counterparts specifically because distribution and platform fees were lower. It wasn't until MW2 came out that PC prices started reflecting console prices.
It’s confusing to you that manufacturing, shipping, and selling physical copies of a game was more expensive than digital distribution? The world is very different today. Digital distribution is the norm and everybody knows you don’t need 30% to make it sustainable.
That is not what is confusing to me.
I'm not sure I buy this. Epic's 12% is the bare minimum just to cover basic infrastructure costs for distributing modern AAA games. It doesn't even include transaction fees, which vary based on which payment method the user selects (whereas Steam and other storefronts eat these as part of their 30% cut).
Simply sustaining your existing platform is also not enough. Where Epic runs a barebones storefront and client with little in the way of useful features beyond "download game and keep it updated", storefronts like GOG and Steam take their actual profit and re-invest it in improving their platform for everyone. Think of all the time and money that goes into making things like Steam Input, Proton, or even GOG themselves fixing up older games for modern PCs.
The fact that it has been 5 years and Epic still hasn't been able to make their 12% cut break even speaks volumes.
Epic’s 12% doesn’t do much because they’re constantly burning money trying to find more revenue. It’s obvious they’re not doing anything efficiently. They also have far fewer sales than Steam which further hurts their bottom line.
The standard internet payment processors take 3% as their cut.
With modern cloud systems we can quickly distribute files globally for tiny amounts of money.
The truth is that Valve makes a ton of money off of this fee. It’s great that they contribute to open source projects but plenty of companies make similar contributions with a fraction of the resources.
I still remember being annoyed I suddenly needed to get a separate app just to continue playing counter strike.
Ah yeah, I was a bit of a hold out going to 1.6, but eventually all the servers started disappearing. That was like ~8 years ago.. right?
Na homie that was almost 10 years ago.
Valve is constantly looking for ways to help the customer, just in their own weird ass way. Having linux as a competitive option to windows and being able to refund/return digital games, as well as a built in mod searcher and loader being some of the things they brought to the platform because Valve employees themselves are gamers and want their platform to be useful towards gamers needs
Refunding/returning digital games is an outcome of a lawsuit if I remember correctly
I think they do hell the consumer. And agree it's weird. But would argue against that being their goal with the caveat that what I'm about to say makes no real difference to anything.
I think they're looking to increase profits first and foremost. However, because they're not answerable to shareholders, they understand that the best way to do this is by building loyalty and ensuring "stickiness" loyalty. ¹
It's still about money. They just understand that the safest way to make it is by having a long term view and not burning people.
I think its both tbh. Money is certainly a factor, we live in a Capatalist society, the more money you have, the more you can do and influence, so even companies with the best of intentions will focus on profits. But with the shit Valve does, like the Steam Deck being a Linux machine (and thus open source), and working through the legal hassle of designing and making developers agree to digital item returns/refunds, I'm thoroughly convinced Valve generally does just want to make the gaming scene better as well because the employees themselves are also gamers
I think they just understand whatost executibes are too greedy / shit sighted / stupid to understand. Doing what's right for consumers drives revenue. It can be good for the consumer and motivated by profit. They're not mutually exclusive.
Reportedly Epic's 12% barely covers costs and would not if they included transaction fees. 20% seems to be the bare minimum if you want a store to actually have good service, and then I'm giving Valve additional credit for sinking boatloads of money into general infrastructure, in the long term Proton alone is worth those 10%. Much unlike the rest of the stores (exception GOG) which take the same 30% and are run by humongous multinationals.
...and then there's itch.io. If you're a small and scrappy indie very much an option: They're also small and scrappy. And they'll probably shout at you if you try to upload a 20G game I very much doubt their servers would survive an AAA launch. OTOH, reportedly their average revenue split is 8% (customers can choose).
The difference is that Steam sells a ton of copies every single day. The vast majority of Valve's fortune has come from that fee. People jump to defend Steam but it’s already been established by lawsuits against other major corporations that a 30% cut is mostly driven by greed.
The 30% cut was industry standard for digital distribution for years. Google, Apple, and numerous other players all took 30% as standard.
That being said, Steam hasn't taken a flat 30% for years now - their standard agreement starts at 30%, decreases to 25% after the first $10m in sales, then decreases further to 20% after $50m.
Furthermore, Valve has done more in terms of providing services, APIs/libraries, and end-user features (all with no additional fee to the developers or consumers) than any other game storefront has. I'd say they more than justify their cut.
Industry standard by massive corporations synonymous with corporate greed. Boy am I glad the fee decreases after $10m in sales. That will go a long way with helping out indie devs.
It’s okay to like Steam because they’ve provided us with a good way of purchasing and playing games. I like Steam but we don’t have defend things that are obviously greedy.
"it’s where all my games already are."
My pet theory is this was realized by epic and so the only reason they give games away is to "help" users build a library they won't want to "leave behind" for another store platform. Once they reach the market share they were aiming for I fully expect the practice to stop.
Moreover, just like that guy, Epic thinks that's the only thing that matters, or at least the biggest issue. The idea that gamers might not use them because their service is actually just worse seems to have never crossed their minds in any serious fashion.
Yes, there's bloat from old features, but there's also quality tools built into Steam, such as Steam Input and Proton.
Has anything ever worked perfectly when first released?
If that was true, EA would have been dead in the water 12 years ago.
Didn't EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?
Remember Valve is the company and Steam is the storefront/launcher.
Epic is the company, EGS is the storefront/launcher.
EA is the company, Origin is (was?) the storefront/launcher.
Technically no. EA now just calls it "The EA App"
If Mass Effect Legendary Edition actually included ME3's multiplayer I might've considered installing Origin again.
Nope. Star Wars Squadrons (which I got from Epic, BTW) required me to download and install Origin first. I'd be salty as fuck about that if all parties involved hadn't already guaranteed that it was a game that I was never going to pay for anyway.
Yeah, making it a requirement for playing your physical copy of Half-Life definitely looks like good will to me.
And in turn diminished the industry's piracy problm for many years, making PC Games market a stable ecosystem instead of letting all of PC gaming die.
No? Cracks were created for that too
Yes? How can you possibly deny that? Steam was able to claw a market in russia, a country famous for piracy. Gaben was right, convenience with good prices trumps everything.
Sure, cracks still exist, but I've stopped downloading them in favour of buying off Steam because the user experience was a lot better. I'm sure I can't be the only one to do this.
Before Steam existed i would even crack games I had legitimate copies of solely because pre-Steam DRM was such an enormous pain in the ass to deal with.
Even today Denuvo is a veritable paradise compared to what DRM used to be like.
I was up for a Steam competitor. I signed up for the Epic store a few years back. Tried to get the first free game. It wasn't available in my region despite being plastered all over the store in my region. The exact same thing happened the next month. Both of those games were available on Steam in my region at some pretty low prices by then.
Then, Epic started paying for exclusivity, making games not available in my region at all. I had at least deleted their stupid app by then anyway. Fuck Epic entirely.
Used to have similar problem with Steam back in the day.
Edit: I like how some people disagree that i experienced something by downvote. It's not like i can change it or something 😅 👌
I don't doubt it, but I've been a pretty regular user since 2009, and I've never had a game advertised to me on the front page that wasn't available in my region. In fact, there are games I want that I know aren't available on Steam here, and the only way to get to the Steam page for them is by using a proxy or VPN. I definitely can't buy them with my account. It seems pretty amateurish of Epic to advertise unavailable games and to even let me click "buy" before telling me I can't buy it. Maybe they've fixed that by now, but whatever. The paid exclusivity bullcrap showed me where their priorities lie.
There are mistakes being done unintentionally when you develop complex software.
Take my example, Humble showed me Bandai Namco game that I could not even get in a bundle. So out of 10 games, I received 9, while other regions receive 10.
That is even worse than Epic's (probably honest) mistake.
Humble isn't trying to compete with Steam or Epic, and they don't engage in the anti-consumer practice of paying off developers for exclusive access to games.
I'm aware of the complexities of software development. If Epic seriously wanted to compete with Steam, they really should have tried harder to provide a better service instead of trying to buy loyalty through free games and exclusivity contracts.
It's not amaterish anymore than GOG or Steam giving out free games back in the day. Even before it used to be magazines with free games on CDs. I still have these games in my libraries. It's widely used strategy by bigger business to start new departments or even child companies. It's why they say money makes money.
It's amateurish that their store advertised games to me that were unavailable to me. I'm no code whiz, but it can't be that hard to chuck in an if (region == false) then !advertise; Valve and GOG don't seem to have any problems with that.
I have no issue with them giving away free games. Too bad that and the paid exclusives don't earn them a loyal customer base. Maybe if they'd put more effort into their store. Like maybe not advertising region locked games to regions where they're not available.
That part i agree. It's not that unrealistic with their budget .
Maybe just uh..
Put your games on steam?
Shocking literally no one, the game store that took a shot at the king with store that (initially) didn't have baseline stuff like reviews and a cart, and tried to get by on giving away product and paying a bunch of money to make stuff exclusive isn't doing so hot financially.
On one hand, thanks to the nonstop giveaways, I have way more games on Epic than I do on Steam, so I have a reason to continue using Epic.
On the other hand, Epic's launcher runs like shit, constantly refreshes my library page, slow as hell, glitchy as hell, and makes me feel dirty when I use it.
Steam is just so cozy and is on the whole a much more enjoyable PC gaming experience. I imagine 95% of Epic users are people like me: sign in on Thursdays for the free game and then bounce.
Have you tried Heroic Games Launcher?
I know about its existence, but I'm not sure how safe is it as a way to prevent Epic (and potentially Tencent) from tracking my personal information.
they have no excuse for it to be slow as shit
I talked to their support about the library force refresh and it's apparently intended. That library refresh is literally the only reason the EGS isn't open all the time like Steam is. Random data usage is bad, and can fuck off. I do not need random lag spikes.
I still have more games on Steam, however, Itch.io has had a couple of insane bundles in the last couple of years, which mean I have way more games and content on Itch than on Steam, which I did not see coming. I still use Steam the most, though, because I'm used to their interface and it works really well on Linux.
Valve has not optimized big library, so me with 4k games and good computer but Steam performs like PoS.
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?
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.
See it's not all negative news on the internet.
EGS losing money has been great for gamers, as they continue to give away free games in an attempt to claw any marketshare. Gamers continue to win as long as this situation lasts. But reading these comments, nobody seems to recognize this.
Gamers lose when the store shuts down and you lose access to all of the games you got for free, or worse actually paid for.
Many of the games are DRM-free, as evidenced on PCGamingWiki.
I actually didn't know this. Fuckin eh!
Yeah but Unreal Tournament goes back on the shelf
ESG losing money is great for me just on principle, Tim Sweeney can go fuck himself.
Tencent is a despicable company
Consumers also won when a Walmart would open up in their neighborhood and run the local stores out of business by selling everything at a loss.
Of course, once the competition was eliminated, Walmart stopped selling things at a loss.
Epic Games launcher/store is nothing more than Tencent spyware using "free games" as bait and masquerading as a Steam competitor.
If you haven't tried a linux distro since the release of the SteamDeck, I highly recommend you give gaming on linux a shot.
Gotta love the diehard linux users promoting their preferred OS on a topic even slightly related.
Man, I enjoy Linux too, but I cannot see how its related to the post.
Having been on Linux for over a year now, I don't. It's still plagued by instability, weird bugs, and big limitations whenever non-Steam games are involved.
You mean games that arent available in steam at all, vor those which you haven't bought there? I found the easiest workaround for me was to simply add the games to my steam library and to launch it from there. Then I don't have to worry about what proton version I should use or whatnot.
Which destro would you recommend? I'm kind of sick of Windows.
Fedora with "Dash to Panel" and the "Applications Menu" make the GUI identical to Windows. That would be a good start :)
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/1160/dash-to-panel/ https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/6/applications-menu/
Or just use KDE instead of Gnome. It's such a terrible DE anyway.
If you want a Couch Gaming Station I recommend you to look at ChimeraOS. Linux first that boots directly to Stream Big Picture (since it's based on SteamOS) and it supports emulators and Epic Game Store.
On my old i5-8700T with qUHD630 it pretty much was a install, reboot, login to Steam and start playing. My Wireless Xbox Controller USB dongle was plug'n'play.
Nobara has, for me, been the most plug and play no headache distro I've touched, ever.
What brand of graphics card do you have? If it's Nvidia Pop!_OS will likely work best. If you have an AMD card I've heard good things about EndeavorOS.
Also, feel free to shop around for a desktop environment (DE) you like, which controls the look and how things are organized. While distros have a default, it's pretty easy to swap them. I personally use KDE Plasma (the same DE the Steam Deck uses) with Pop!_OS
Thanks for the tip but no
How's the performance on Nvidia cards? Most benchmarks that I saw are people using AMD cards.
NVIDIA is a one-line command to install and setup the drivers.
For me? Most of my games run better on Linux. Such as CSGO, which is why I initially switched.
I generally prefer AMD, how are they for Linux?
Great! You don’t even need to install any drivers. It just works.
Also some distros like Pop!_OS just have it included and automatically update them
What does this have to do with the Epic store?
Not worth the hassle but you do you. Keep fighting the good fight.
And it really is the good fight in this case. I've been running Linux on my gaming PC for around four years with very little trouble. Games from Epic and GOG run very well(for me at least) through Heroic Games Launcher. I've been using Windows for work on/off the last couple of years, but especially since they "upgraded" to Windows 11, it's such a relief to come home to Linux.
Sorry, I'll wait some more. I tried two times getting back to Linux as I see the potential. It didn't work. I'm gonna stick to windows until some problems will be fixed, or Microsoft further enshittifies itself.
No thanks
I have no idea why this is newsworthy. Epic's own 2019 documents and testimony in the Apple trial showed that the company did not expect the store to be profitable until 2024 or even 2027. The strategy of heavy investment and operating at a loss to turn a profit later worked for Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, and many others. Even this week, there are headlines like "Elon Musk Says SpaceX's Starlink Achieves Breakeven Cash Flow".
Spotify has never turned a profit, at least not yearly.
That could be true, making it an even stronger argument.
But all the other companies had in mind something else besides "gotta beat the other guys" and actually brought something to the table.
You can't deny that Epic taking 12% revolutionized the industry, with Microsoft following suit and even Valve making some small changes. As Gabe himself said on the competition, "it keeps [them] honest". That's a win for game creators.
For the gamers, we got many free games and I think the Epic freebies inspired Microsoft to offer similar deals with Game Pass, Amazon with Prime, and even GOG recently gave away a pretty notable game, Blacksad, which was uncharacteristic in relation to their past giveaways.
Pretty sure all those were offering games with their subscriptions long before Epic store was a thing.
But, on the other hand, every other thing they did outweighs the rest - exclusivity, shitty launcher, and spyware.
I am also not sure if any game given away by Amazon Prime really interested me at all.
I have a crazy idea for Epic. Instead of paying a fortune for exclusives, leverage the lower 12% cut and have game publishers sell for less (so that the publisher makes the same amount on Steam and Epic)
And GOG. They used to have several games up there, and then delisted them.
Publishers sets their own prices though.
So why can't they sell their game for $56 on Epic and $70 on Steam? They'd make about the same money per sale on each?
Are you seriously asking why a company in a capitalist economy would keep more money for themselves?
Most likely reason, contracts.
Example Nike sales shoes directly at the same price as footlocker. Why dont they under cut footlocker? They have a contracts that says they won't under cut footlocker
There could br an issue like that but well you can make new contracts
But price disparities already exist in other places sometimes. Like YT premium using the App store (due to the 30% cut) and everywhere else.
it depends on what the contracts say
Valve prohibit that, according to the lawsuit filed by Wolfire Games.
There's no way that can be legal. I generally support Valve but that is monopolistic as hell.
That only applies to the steam keys valve supplies to developers that have a 0% cut. Also doing regional pricing would be a massive headache if that were true due to different stores having different recommended price conversions.
The claim specifically mentions Epic and quotes a Valve employee who made statements to the effect of it being prohibited, irrespective of whether a Steam key is involved. Read from page 47 and pay attention to the last paragraphs of page 55.
What do you mean by this?
Aren't games regionally priced like forever ? I've buying key's in GB because they are cheaper. Also Doesn't steam lock you out of your games if you bought US version and travel to the other side of the world? I just vaguely remember people complaining about it.
No and no.
The time lock lasts 3 months, not forever.
I'm pretty much sure that they had 60$ = 60€ kind of regional prices.
If the developer chooses to do so themselves then it's likely ok, but forcing the developer to do so likely violates some sort of law.
I imagine that when Epic instituted it's lower percentage they hoped that developers would sell exclusively on their platform for higher profits. Instead the developers decided to sell on both platforms and just make a larger percentage on the Epic sales. From the developer perspective it would have been wise in the long run to lower prices so that Epic could grow, but that hurts their short term profits and also stymied Epic's potential.
If Epic's store grew to truly rival Steam more developers might have jumped ship, but to do so prematurely would be losing a large portion of the potential customers.
Ultimately Epic had to develop a full Steam clone quickly while all Steam had to do was not suck for the end user.
Why would the developer sell at a loss to help Epic out? What's in it for the developer?
Well it shouldn't be at a loss. As the person I responded to pointed out, Epic had a lower fee than Steam so the developer can sell on Epic for less than they would on Steam and make the same amount of money.
Doing so wouldn't be at a loss, but it wouldn't make as much profit as possible.
If the developers did choose to sell on Epic for less than it would bolster the Epic store and potentially lead to more people moving to Epic.
If Steam's fee is 30% and Epic's is 15% the developer could sell on Steam for $70 and make $49 and they could sell on Epic for $60 to make $51. That's a 4% increase in profits.
If the Epic store takes off and a large enough user base switches they could maybe increase the Epic price to $62.5 which would result in an additional 4% increase in profits.
Epic's deal is that they're offering a lower rate, but the developers aren't sharing the benefits of that to help Epic grow. If they did the long term profits would likely exceed the short term.
Again, why would the developer care about making Epic grow? It's the store's responsibility to offer good service, you don't see Nintendo trying to help out Target or anything like that now do ya?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand. If you don't understand I'd be happy to elaborate.
Basically what I'm saying is, there is no reason for the developer to try to help a specific storefront, the developer does not work for the storefront, the developers that release games on Epic are just as much a customer of the store as, well, the customer.
If Epic has a shit storefront, the correct answer isn't to give it a lower price there to "Help Epic grow", the correct answer is "Well we'll just focus on selling it on GOG, Humble Bundle, and Steam"
It is unrealistic to expect or even ask for a developer to give Epic special treatment without proper cause "Just to be nice", not how the business world works.
We see this all the time offline, or rather, we don't see it... At no point did Nintendo, Sega, or anyone go "Oh no Toys R Us and KMart are facing tough times, we should lower our prices for those stores to help em out."
Now if it was a developer with actual stake in Epic, maybe they'd do that.. but I don't see Sweeney handing out large amounts of Epic stock to anyone do you?
Slightly edited for clarity
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I'm not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they'll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
I'd argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn't really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn't a customer in that sense because they aren't buying and reselling the product.
Yeah, the developers can say fuck it and not help out Epic, but it just furthers the limited monopoly that Steam is. They can't complain that Steam takes too big of a cut and then make businesses decisions that are counter to that complaint. It's like complaining about Reddit but choosing to stay there.
I would agree that Epic is a customer in the sense that they are paying for exclusivity, but I think that contract should also include a reduced sale price in it.
EX: Epic pays the developer X dollars so that the first week of the release it's sold at -Y% of the MSRP exclusively on Epic. After that they can sell it on other storefronts for the MSRP for Z months (with no sales) or they have to refund the X dollars.
No, you misunderstand what I mean. I'm saying the DEVELOPER of the GAMES is a customer of Epic, what's Epic selling? Store space in exchange for a cut of the profits. There is no reason for a customer to want to help out a business, they don't have a stake in the company.
If McDonalds is having a hard time, I don't pay them double for cheeseburgers to "help em out", I say "Sucks to be you, but hey we still have a Wendy's."
Except they're still making money selling on Steam, GOG, and Humble Bundle.... There's really nothing in it for them if Epic succeeds and nothing of value lost if Epic shrivels up and dies.
Ah I see, you're correct, I did misunderstand you. I think your point is true, but still lacks finesse in describing the relationship between developers and digital store fronts. I also think you're disregarding the benefit that the additional 18% cut the developer gets to keep as well as creating partnership options rather than being stuck with a defacto monopoly.
I also don't think it's fair to compare GOG or Humble Bundle with Epic or Steam, their purposes and market share is so much smaller than Steam. Epic isn't trying to compete with GOG or Humble.
Also, you're correct that the developer is making money either way, but they are making a larger percentage on sales through Epic. You're probably right that the developers aren't taking that into account, but they are materially benefited by its success. If they fail to account for that benefit and Epic fails then it will mean they make less money overall.
I think instead of your McDonalds example a better one would be contractors for a large business. Maybe your business frequently uses an electrical contractor and due to special circumstances the field is exceptionally limited (specialty license or security clearance). There is one contractor available and they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want. So far this company has been really fair and not abused their power, but a new contractor becomes available. The new contractor has an inferior service line and is a bit slower, but they're also cheaper. You could just ignore the new contractor and what happens happens, but in the real world it's fairly common for businesses to diversify service contracts to maintain a pool of available contractors.
Epic paid $146 to make borderlands exclusive to epic. The game kind of flopped.
Completely untrue. It was a major success and brought record numbers of new customers to the store, which is the main metric pursued by Epic.
I might actually buy a game of the app didn't constantly sign me out.
I know, right! The "Remember Me" option does absolutely nothing ffs
Would you though
I've already purchased a few, tbh
Seems to me that the most lucrative thing in gaming is still just making really good games.
Sure, there's Steam, but that's a fluke. The exception that proves the rule. Just get back to actual game making.
But you have to give Valve credit for supporting Linux gaming witch if gets popular enough will create perfect competition for Windows. imagine system that requires 1GB or RAM instead of 4-5GB when idle , that doesn't spy on you and is more secure. Perfect for gaming IMHO if taken seriously.
Windows PC gamers and Xbox gamers are more or less the only ones who game on non-*Nix kernels; PlayStation is BSD-derived, Switch is BSD+Android, Steam Deck is of course Linux, a lot of arcade cabinets run on Debian. Gaming on non-Windows platforms is absolutely viable, it's just being hidden from players by a thin layer of customization.
yes it is, in fact it would be much better experience if properly supported if nothing else because Linux can be modyfied into anything, though free community driven Linux is preferable to Sony's closed system.
I mean, Steam is owned by Valve, and they make some pretty good games. Half-Life, Portal are some of the best series out there. I recently played HL Alyx and it was a banger.
Is it actually not profitable or is this one of those tax writeoff bullshit things where it makes them money in some indirect way
Most likely actually non profitable. With crapton of Chinese cash, they can keep paying studios more of a cut than Steam, giveaway games, pay for exclusivity. Their goal right now isn't to make money, but to take market share
Would that be because it is still a pale imitator not remotely competitive with steam?
Doesn't need to be profitable, when they're just rolling around in Fortnite money wondering what to spend it on.
then why they layoff like 10% of their staff recently?
Because they're greedy?
Well they're not gonna cut top salaries, can't have any of that, it's bad for business!! Imagine being able to only afford one yacht instead of your standard three! Gotta let those lackeys at the bottom of the pyramid go, what're they even holding up, anyway? The foundation of the company? Surely not.
because profit + 10% of salary > profit
It's the hip new tech company trend to help keep wages and salaries down.
Everyone (in big tech at least) has. Just didn't want to feel left out.
Shouldn't have bought Mediatonic either.
Whether its games stores or streaming services, the media seems to constantly miss the obvious, lack of accounted profits means no tax to pay.....
Only way epic can compete, even with bloody ubisoft launcher, is to remove competition. Improving their store just isnt part of their business plan, if it was they would do it.
And it'll never be.
I had epic game store before they started blasting free games for unreal tournament. That was a fun alpha and was excited to see what it was going to evolve into. Guess not now lol
Fortnite killed that and I'm still bitter about it
Well yeah, of course it isn't profitable, when it's damn near malicious in how they treat their customers it's not surprising.
Never bought anything there and probably never will, but I'm always there every thursday to get the free games. Heavy gog and steam user, and gamepass subscriber.
I mean, it’s trying to compete against Steam. A platform which has 99% of the games ever released on PC after its inception at the same price and with a great interface.
You’re not winning against that unless you actually sell the same games at a lower price (and I don’t think they can afford to do that)
It would help if their service itself wasn't just objectively worse, but they're not even trying to compete on quality. Their only selling points are free games and platform exclusives. It's like they haven't even tried to actually make a better service.
So like xbox and Xbox live but without the Xbox lol
Also you can't trust epic. They have been caught scraping user data and they negotiate shitty deals which actually harm users on the PC platform overall. Fuck epic.
I wonder if GOG is profitable?
Do you guys think e.g. YouTube or redshit is profitable despite of what they say and without "profit" that's pumped in by investors or mother companies?
it's just a business,
They get market share by loosing profit then once they are establish enough so most people won't leave if they change things and they change things and start to make profit.
At least that's the plan.
Google's goal with YouTube was never profit. Had it been YT would end up on Google graveyard long time ago. They are looking for market dominance with video streaming which in turn provides a lot of useful data for mining. Ads are there to curb price of whole ordeal a bit.
I wish I had an adblock for the epic launcher.
Just use the Heroic launcher
The only time I paid for anything on epic was Kingdom Hearts and that's only because I've wanted a PC Version for 20 years
I'm still holding out for a Steam release. I refuse to play it elsewhere.
Whatever happens Beyond this morning is a little later on. By that I mean I would expect it within the next couple of months
Whoa, I've been waiting years for this. What makes you think it will happen soon?
Typically exclusivity contracts for epic last like a year, and I know that the Final Fantasy 7 remake was brought over. And that used to be epic exclusive. From what I understand though, the main problem is disney, any decisions that have to be made with Kingdom Hearts have to go through disney.
Kingdom Hearts dropped on Epic in March '21. Maybe we'll see it on Steam in March '24?
Bye Felecia
Good.
That's really sad. I like Unreal Engine a lot, I hope it doesn't suffer from this.
I imagine Unreal Engine is likely what keeps that store open. That and Fortnite.
I was upset when Epic acquired Rocket League and drove it into the ground, and then I was pissed when Epic paid for exclusivity on ubisoft games. I bought one game on Epic game stores app two years ago and have since claimed every free game they offer every week whether I care to play it or not. I have also repurchased that game on Steam, so literally the only time I even open epic games is to claim the weekly free game and cost them money.
Epic has exclusivity on all Ubisoft games? I stopped buying Ubi games years ago, so I guess that's fine with me. I hope Ubisoft loses money on that deal.
I don't LIKE the epic games store, but it is kind of fucking strange, that valve is a company whose literal monopoly is not only not questioned, but specifically celebrated.
Yeah cuz they doing it right
For now... Except for all the showelware, and OS support of "the current" one...
Haha
I recently played hitman 3 with Lutris on Kubuntu in Epicstore.
Sync was working well. Game was running well.
It is not Steam (which has a native Linux installation), but at least it works.
If the price is the same I go with steam, if epic is much cheaper I go with epic.
Lucky you, that you managed to make Epic run properly over Linux!
It was really straightforward to be honest. But I did it 2 weeks ago.
Maybe 6-12 months ago was more difficult.
I installed Lutris I opened it, then installed epic store Then I logged in and installed hitman.
To play I have to open lutris > epic store > hitman 3.