What's up with Epic Games?
I can't seem to find that one comment explaining the issue with them...
But for the sake of promoting conversation on Lemmy, what's the issue with Epic, and why should I go for Steam or GoG?
Note: Piracy is not an answer. I understand why, and do agree to a certain extent... But sometimes, the happiness gained by playing something from a legitimate source is far greater š„¹... coming from someone who could never ever afford to purchase games, nor could my parents... Hence I've always played bootleg, or pirated games.
TL;DR
What's wrong?
- Their launcher has a terrible UI AND UX.
- They make exclusive deals with studios to prevent other platforms from getting games. (Someone mentioned that Steam did the same thing in their infancy. Also, I have another question; why is it ok for Sony and Microsoft to make exclusive games for their consoles but not ok for these PC platforms to do so?)
- They have been invested in by a Chinese company, Tencent. (Someone mentioned that it isn't that big of a deal, but idk.)
- They are actively anti-linux for some reason.
Epic cons:
Epic pros:
Steam pros:
Steam cons:
Gog
I don't know anything besides the fact that it has drm-free games and that it's owned by CDPR (the guys who developed the witcher series and cyberpunk)
I personally purchase my games on steam, since I think their contribution to linux gaming is crucial for linux to go mainstream
Choose what you will knowing this. If someone else wants to add something to this list you're welcome to do so.
Valve is what happens when someone who's not just outright fucking evil invents a money printing machine
Also:
To be more clear about it, Tencent is Epic's largest investor, so they obviously have a great deal of influence over and access to anything they want from Epic (likely including user data) and they directly benefit from Epic's growth.
Also:
Given that DRM on Steam is entirely up to each game publisher, I don't think it's appropriate to list under "Steam cons". I'm not even sure that any of my Steam games have DRM.
If you mean that most Steam games expect to find an instance of Steam running, you should know that is not DRM, and it's trivially replaced with the open-source Goldberg Emulator or a similar tool.
Another plus for GOG is that they let you download games with a web browser. No special app required. (I think Itch.io does this as well.)
Donāt forget that Epic buys up existing licenses to sell them as exclusives. They even pulled Rocket League from Steam after buying the studio.
Let's also not forget that game developers have no choice but to release on steam if they want to have any chance on breaking even since they have that huge of a market share and that Epic challenging that already lead to better deals for developers since Valve hat virtually free reign before
Steam have DRM free games too, you don't have to launch them through steam even.
steam drm is so easy to bypass that it almost doesn't count
A con for GOG is their site is slow as fuck. And god forbid you want to go back to a previous page, you'll likely lose where you were looking 9 times out of ten. Especially so on mobile.
Pros: Can be the only place you can get old games that would've been unavailable otherwise
The older games are often really really cheap, especially during sales
Another con is that GOG versions are usually not updated as much as other versions are. It's a shame, because I'd prefer to use GOG when possible.
Gog also seemingly no 2fa other than an faq page with instructions that cannot be followed.
I always get 2FA'd on GoG for an emailed code
Do you remember how to configure it? Last I checked I went through every account and settings page on the store site and seemingly separate customer service log in and no clear way to set it up.
Not a clue sorry. I'm personally not one to go out of my way to set up 2FA even though I know it's good practice to do so (unless it's work related, then I do)
Steam's, Epic's, Ubisoft's, Battle.net's and whatever-EA's-thing-is-called-now's sites are also slow as shit. What is it with these platforms which prevent them from loading a webpage in less than 10 seconds?
Sadly, it's likely a lot of tracking. The kind that look where your mouse is and where you scroll and stop etc.
What tracking does Epic need? "According to our analytics, 100% of users scroll to the free games banner on Tuesday at 5pm CEST, then leave and don't come back for a week. What a mystery!"
Oh thanks for the reminder, I hadn't opened epic so I can scroll down to the free games banner in a while.
In Steam's case, the slowness looks more like a side effect of it being a Chromium Embedded Framework application (similar to Electron) with a lot of extras bolted on. It's just not built for efficient use of resources.
The website, outside of the client is still slower than it used to be a good few years ago
By making the entire thing a JavaScript monstrosity with egregious amounts of scripts.
Steam UI is messy but they have a ton of functionality in their store/system. Epic took ages to even get a functioning cart, Steam has tons of features which are not even tied to the games in their store like remote play and Steam VR. Family sharing is also really cool for example. Also Steam basically killed piracy for a long time due to amazing Steam sales + convenience of use.
Steam ui might be messy but you can get custom skins for it.
I want to note that Steam isn't inherently a DRM platform, as there are many games on Steam which are DRM free. Even ones that require the Steam backend can be bundled with Steamworks, serving all the same backend requirements without Steam needing to be installed on the machine.
yea, they steam has some drm-free games available... but steam is a drm platform.. one that also helped normalize one-time-use codes and tying 'purchases' to a non-transferable online account. valve did more to shred the used pc game market than any other company.
Epic has a significantly higher percentage of games confirmed to be DRM-free.
So if we just assume this random wiki with no sourcing is correct...
Steam has more games than everyone else, DRM on Steam is the developer/publisher's choice, Steam still has more DRM-free games than Epic does, and how many of the ones Epic has are exclusives that don't count?
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games
The Origin store proportionally has more DRM free games than Steam...
So if we just assume this random wiki with no sourcing is correctā¦
Steam has more games than everyone else, DRM on Steam is the developer/publisherās choice, Steam still has more DRM-free games than Origin does, and how many of the ones Origin has are exclusives that donāt count?
Didn't know about heroic... Gonna check that out.
Also, wow. You're the dude that appears in comment sections with well-formatted paragraphs šÆ.
Appreciate your service.
Another Epic con: they bribe devs to not launch their games on Steam and GoG, because their store isnāt good.
Steam DRM is optional, it depends on developers to implement it.
Your first line is straight up misinformation. Epic has remarkably few games with DRM, mostly from big publishers implementing their own. I've yet to find an indie that can't be launched directly as an .exe. Same with Cyberpunk 2077, launches directly without issue.
The only singleplayer game I can't play offline is Hitman, just like on Steam, because their publisher sucks.
Well, I have four big ones:
System scanning: EGS is known to automatically scan your system and send your data back to them. While this seems to be the same type of analytics Steam does occasionally, in Steam's case, it's opt-in, and done with full, informed consent.
Paid exclusives: Epic has been known to pay publishers to make their games artificially exclusive to their own store. They regularly claim this money is to support the development of the games in question, but this is easily disproven, as they've been seen buying games known to be complete more than once. Additionally, this has resulted in bait-and-switch-like situations, where users would prepurchase Steam copies of games, only to be informed that they wouldn't be getting them.
Publisher-centric behavior: Another user here claimed that EGS is pro-developer and anti-consumer, but this is only half true. This only rings true in the case of self-published games. There have been cases of developers getting unwarranted backlash after aforementioned bait-and-switches, when they were just as surprised to learn about all the "development support" they received as anyone.
Tim Sweeney: Tim Weeney, the CEO of Epic, is an asshole. A giant, narcissistic, hateful shitbag. Just look at his Twitter, the dudes a giant POS.
I didn't know about this.
It happened to Metro Exodus (great game btw) but iirc all pre orders were honoured and the game was just delisted.
Has it happened after that?
I posted about this in another thread, but Epic also bought exclusivity for games that were crowd-funded then had the option to have the game on Steam removed or you'd get the Steam key after the exclusivity period expired. This pissed off a lot of people.
Wow. That's understandably frustrating.
Yeah, this caused A LOT of controversy back then. As far as I know, Epic has stopped doing this and has pivoted a bit more into funding game development (i.e. Alan Wake 2.) That being said, that gave Epic a terrible reputation when they initially launched EGS.
They are still doing it. I'm still waiting for dead island 2 to come to steam because it's a 1 year timed exclusive on epic
They still sign exclusives, they don't do it with crowdfunded projects that promised a Steam release anymore.
I meant with crowd funded games. I'm aware that they still buy exclusivity. Though from what I know they pay indies less compared to what they used to pay.
I didn't know this. Which games did it?
I don't actually know all the games that did this, but the most famous examples are Phoenix Point and Shenmue 3. I already read that Outer Wilds was another one that took the exclusivity deal.
Epic's CEO has a hateboner for everything Linux.
No linux support. Actually, in the case of games like rocket league, they REMOVED linux support.
They bought the game and changed out the graphics API to kill the Linux native builds, then after the community got it working via Wine, they added anticheat. Epic went further than incompetence on that one.
I've been able to play it in heroic launcher. Didn't realize it was it was this bad
I personally don't like Epic for paying developers for exclusivity deals, keeping games off other PC platforms for a year or more. Artificial scarcity is bad for consumers.
Even worse is that they do this while trying to paint themselves as the underdog against the Steam monopoly. It's not only hypocritical, but also deceitful. A new monopoly is not a solution to an existing monopoly, but a solution to investments paying off.
Don't forget them being hypocritical again for suing google/apple for being monopolistic because they don't want to have to go through them for payment.
Definitely a terrible idea.
Using money to jump ahead in the line is a terrible mindset. Provide good features, you'll get your recognition.
Which they don't do. Their platform has very few features, and doesn't even have a cart. (Well last time I booted EGS like a year ago).
They have almost no features and of the features they do provide, none of them are great. Their only "feature" is operating at a loss, subsidized by megacorps, for many years like Amazon to gain a bunch of market share.
Luckily for gamers, steam already existed so they couldn't corner the market and enshittify the entire industry like amazon did.
No it won't - people are lazy
Even CDProjekt sold many more copies on steam than GOG when you
Don't tell me people are choosing the better deal when it's all just steam having the might of "I have most of my games there already" on their side...
Pretty much every single decision you can see from their history since the inception of EGS is either stupid or blatantly destructive to gaming industry. Just some examples: better revenue shares for developers? Sure but this translates into worse platform. Money bonuses for exclusivity is great for developers? Sure but the game is then stuck at the platform that gives no means for users to interact and let developers know how they could improve their product. Cross platform multiplayer platform that works? Sure but then we have to deal with stupid requirements like having an account on additional platforms we may not want to use, even to play single player modes sometimes.
You can also check Tim's Twitter and see how ignorant and hypocritical he is. I wouldn't mind it but his decisions seem to actually affect the whole platform and therefore the industry so... too bad.
Don't forget how he abandoned PC gaming when Unreal Tournament 3 bombed after they released shitty mid tools and the modding community they built up over UT 2k3 and 2k4 dissolved.
It actually goes to publishers, so the only way devs see that extra cut is by self-publishing. So I guess for smaller indie devs it can be a good deal.
It can. Doesn't save those games from being forgotten faster than they release elsewhere though. Only a few managed to overcome this effect somewhat.
The multi-billionaire owner with the backing of the Chinese government is claiming that he's the underdog against a popular company/piece of software/GabeN. He's made some poor choices interacting with the community.
Yes, it's probably nice for a publisher to have a guaranteed income, which is why they sell exclusivity. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth, so I choose not to support it.
The rest about the launcher being bad sounds unhinged to me, but some people are really into that.
They bought Rocket League and actively made it worse.
I don't disagree with everything you said here but come on, Steam is basically a privately owned PC games store monopoly that has now been going on for 25 years. Since it's not public we can't really know for sure but there's a very real possibility that Epic is the underdog here
I don't think steam has any anti-competitive behavior that I'm aware of.
Fortnite has roughly 100 million more monthly active users than steam, to say nothing of every piece of software running Unreal Engine, Epic is huge.
Steam somehow prevents publishers from selling games at a cheaper price in competitors' stores, even if their cut from the store is lower. That is extremely anti-competitive and has to be illegal.
True. I forgot about that in my comment actually. I think they calmed down on that because it was basically illegal in a lot of countries though.
If you sign up to use Steam to distribute your game then one of the things you agree to is to make it available on Steam at the same price you offer anywhere else. This protects Steam's business and ensures that Steam customers aren't disadvantaged.
However, it also applies even if the alternative channels don't make use of Steam directly (e.g selling on Epic). This is where the Wolfire Games lawsuit comes in. Will be interesting to see how it goes.
Steam was fined in Australia for not providing refunds for games
It was a bit more than just an issue of Valve not providing refunds.
Read about it here and here.
Epic doesn't make nearly as much money from Fortnite's players as steam makes from their users though. Same for UE royalties. I don't think there's a single UE license that has a 30% rev share (which is what you get on steam if you don't have big AAA sales). Hell, I don't even think there's one at 10%.
Steam doesn't have anti competitive behavior yet. Gabe has made some bad decisions in the past (may I remind you that he greenlit Bethesda's paid mods idea ?) but he does seem to generally put the users first. But what happens after him ? Imo the company will go public at some point, and it's pretty much downhill from here
Gabe had a say in greenlighting horse armour? What?
Horse armor was a dlc, not a mod (well, there were also joke mods), and it was for oblivion. They tested the paid mods on Skyrim back in 2015 (Bethesda is apparently having another try right now, although it looks like valve is out of the picture this time). Officially implemented on the steam workshop and all, and obviously valve was supposed to get a cut out of every sale which is probably why they were A-OK with it
Epic is the worst of the 3 platforms for a user. It is a drm like steam, but with less games on it, and even less optimized (so even more wasted resources and time loading useless advertising).
Steam has it that is makes game run on Linux smoothly, and the biggest library of games. Gog is drm free. Epic has absolutely nothing a user may want, except for free games so that you are now captive of their shitty platform.
This. Steam also offers reviews, achievements, workshop, communities, groups, streaming, etc, etc
Epic doesn't have to be as good as Steam; it has to be better than Steam. People don't up and leave platforms they like for new platforms for no reason. Epic can take a smaller cut on games but if that doesn't carry to the end user why should I care.
At this point, I don't know if Epic can get better than Steam in the ways that matter simply because they are clearly trying very hard to gain a dominant market position in ways that make it seem like they would abuse such a position, while Valve has had that dominant position for decades without abusing it. Valve is one of the few companies I trust these days. That trust is Valve's to lose, not any other competitor's to gain, though I am open to other adjacent providers (like I've got an xbox game pass sub, a ps5, and switch).
So much this!
I have zero experience with epic or gog, but steam got incredibly bad lately. It's not uncomon for it to consume 2 entire CPU cores just by animating some store page background.
Steam has always been rather bad on performances, but epic somehow managed to do worse.
No support for Linux - steam has it built in and the DRM free nature of gog games means that they're not too tough to get running via wine.
I think Tim Sweeney is actually anti-linux for the consumer. Since the Deck runs on Linux, he has basically negative incentive for any of their games to run on it.
which I hate considering UT2003/2004 had native Linux support.
Also, they killed off the UT franchise so that it wouldn't compete with Fortnite, even though the games were at best adjacent.
Epic represents the worst parts of capitalism intersecting with games. Well, a set of them, EA represents another set, and Activision-Blizzard yet another set (though there is some overlap). And Microsoft might be the worst of them all but they are still posturing and doing a much better job than Epic at taking market share (which means they know to hold back on the anti-consumer stuff after learning lessons about overplaying their hand too soon several times over).
They learnt their lesson many times over in the past and know how to play the game better
aside from what everyone else said, they killed the beloved Unreal Tournament series, which is a huge sour spot for older gamers who fondly remember those. Then there's the excessive microtransaction demand inside Fortnite, a game with a large playerbase under the age of 18. That alone led to two major lawsuits that they both lost
Aside from TF2--and even that I got a bit bored with--most all of my interest in multiplayer FPS died along with Unreal Tournament. Doesn't feel like having fun is the goal anymore.
They are killing rocket league too
I quit playing Rocket League the moment it was announced that it was going to be Epic exclusive available only on Windows.
In short, Epic is anti-consumer. They claim better support for developers, but in reality consumers are the one paying for that. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but you the consumer have no choice in it. You are forced through exclusives and other limitations to use inferior service for the same price. Even free games they give are there to drag you into their ecosystem and abuse.
This is why Valve doesn't feel threatened, I assume, and is not likely to feel the pressure from Epic anytime soon. For that to happen, Epic would have to get on par with features and customer benefits equal or better than Steam and that's not happening anytime soon. Epic would rather throw hundreds of millions on exclusive deal with some developer and force you the consumer to buy the game on EGS than actually improve the service.
Epic doesn't see gamers as their customer - they see developers as their customer and shape the customer experience around that. For example, Epic said that if/when they add reviews, developers could choose to opt their games out of reviews. That's very pro-developer, but very anti-consumer, whatever you might think of the value of reviews. Informed customers can rattle off a long list of reasons they don't like Epic and why they're bad, but they are a small minority of PC gamers. The "silent majority" doesn't keep up with this kind of stuff or really care about it, so they are literally judging stores on their merits and Epic is a bare bones platform that doesn't offer customers a good reason to spend money in their store because they don't think they need to.
Instead of offering anything to be a better platform they are burning money on the platform in hopes they can pay their way to dominance by paid exclusivivity and giving away games. One of those isn't bad for users. Now consider what Epic offers beyond being able to buy and download a game. Nothing. Epic is only a storefront and they've had years to work on this at this point. Steam has gained dominance and maintains it in no small part due to all the additional features available to everyone. Do you use the steam workshop for any of your games? Have you used the steam community forums to troubleshoot a problem? Do you use big picture mode for a more console like experience? Do you customize your controller settings with the pretty expansive controller support built into steam? The overlay? How about the custom profiles and badges and trading cards? Epic is only a storefront. That's it. That's all that's on offer. So they supplement it with bribing devs to be exclusive to their store and giving away games to try and attract users.
I love the steam chat, as someone who doesn't use discord very often at all. Having the chat is an easy to too flick a message off to someone while i play
Not only that, the storefront runs atrociously slow and the privacy policy is invasive.
These are true criticisms, but I'm not sure if they're fair. To the best of my recollection, Steam had none of those things in 2008, either, about the time they were the age of the EGS, now.
You could say they should (be able to) compete on the merits alone, without free games or paid exclusivity, but that argument wouldn't reflect reality: you need a hefty carrot to lure people away from their comfort zone.
Yes, true. But it's not 2008 anymore. It makes no sense for companies to compete based on features and functionality equivalent to their age.
If someone starts a company today offering only old 1960 color TVs, I'm not going to say "Well they're new, and that's what TV manufacturers would have had at the time". That makes zero sense.
If Epic wants to compete with steam they need to actually compete. They offer nothing of value presently. They have the money and the technical talent to make a good launcher. They just appear to choose not to.
This is completely the case. You can't tell me the makers of Unreal Engine couldn't figure out how to replicate at least some of the more commonly used features of Steam. Of course they can do it. Someone somewhere in the corporate ladder decided they don't need the extra features to compete with steam. Maybe burning money on the exclusivity contracts and game giveaways will work out in the long run, but I doubt that when they flat out said they're spending more money than they earn in their 800+ person layoff just a few months ago.
I'm pretty pragmatic. While I appreciate what Valve has done for PC gaming, I like the idea of them having some legit competition in the space. So when the Epic store started, I bought a bunch of games there to give it a shot. Outer Worlds, Control... And of course I grabbed up a bunch of free games, too!
...and then, over time, I've repurchased all of the games I liked on steam anyway.
Make of that what you will.
I might be on the same trajectory too if my experience worsens š«”.
Epic is not a competition to Valve. They are long ways from that position. If Steam ever was afraid of competitor it was from Windows Marker Place or whatever the name of built-in windows crap is.
Personally my main gripe is their aggressive strategies to force people into their garbage-tier launcher. Compared to Steam it's just miles behind, and it's yet another app to run on your PC. All my friends are also on Steam, and Steam had Linux support. However, if all you want to do is launch singleplayer games, you don't mind the Epic launcher, and you get a good deal, then do whatever you want to.
This.
I fundamentally have no issue with the Epic Games launcher. Steam needs competition to keep it in check. Without alternatives, Steam can and will strangle Dev profits, which is a problem. But Epic is a mediocre service, another app to be running, and actively going out of their way to prevent games from being on the platform of the consumers choice, which I am not a fan of.
Related note: does Epic have any DRM free games? Even Steam has a fair portion of games that are DRM free and work perfectly well from a flash drive on a computer that doesn't have Steam installed. As far as I am aware, Epic does not.
There's just a series of minor ways in which epic is worse, and I don't like having front-end clients for my games as is, so a second, competing alternative going out of its way to push me into using it rubs me the wrong way.
Where can you find what steam games are drm free?
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games_on_Steam
Thanks!
Steam DRM is optional and implemented by the developer.
Hmm...
I have never used a launcher before (for obvious reasons as mentioned in my post), so I found the idea of a separate launcher dumb in the first place. I have used it in recent times thanks to Epic's free games. Finished two of the Tomb Raider trilogy.
Like, I'm fine with a store, but I gotta open the launcher to launch the game? On Windows, with the Tile based Start Menu, I kind of thought it was a terrible idea NGL. I gotta open, wait for it to load, open the library, then click to run, THEN it'll open...
Plus, if I want to track progress, it's a hassle because I can't track without the damn launcher...
For me it's entirely self-centered and I'm dispensing with all the aspirational and political feelings that people have about the way businesses operate.
Quite simply I recommend Steam because it is a product with so many killer features, it's really hard to take anybody else seriously.
It's just shy of 2024, and Epic is still a non-realized alpha product. Their website, store, and launcher/library is a perfunctory effort at best. The most recent feature they added that I even consider to be an improvement would be the ability to look at my own games library - that should sound like a pretty funny joke but it's said deadpan. They don't even have proper controller support for PC, whereas Steam for example recognizes that PC gamers come with a variety of input hardware.
I mean it's so simply that steam is such a mature product that offers so much to the gamer, and epic just wants money and they're not really doing anything to compel me to want to use that platform.
GOG is great, it's a simple system that gives you the power to own your own games and I very much appreciate that. Personally I don't like to splinter my collection across different services so I'm mostly avoid them but I can't say anything really negative.
Anyways this is just my opinion, I feel like steam has tons of killer features, the otherS simply don't. There's lots of valid discussion in other areas about ethics and things like that but really I'm just looking at it from the perspective of what do I want from my money. Steam gives me the most, and the others don't even hold a candle.
Does the EGS store even have a shopping cart feature yet?
I think they finally got it after like 3 or 4 years, but 5 years on and they are still not profitable
I try so hard to be a rational consumer and not an emotion-driven zealot for any company or product. I just look at Epic and what they tell and show gamers/devs/publishers about who they are as a company. They don't hide it.
Epic doesn't seem to add any killer (and at times rudimentary) features while they focus their pitch down to more money for publishers now but we own your soul; By comparison Valve says here's a robust and trusted, feature-rich platform you can deploy upon and we're improving it constantly.
Valve engages in continual expansion of their Steam ecosystem (look at the Deck alone and how much value that added overnight); Valve does continual short-lived research projects like the Steam Link / Steam Controller, which don't survive as stand-alone products but pound one novel killer-feature after the next into the platform; Epic treats their product like an afterthought and their customers as wallets.
This is really what is at the crux of it. I am not sympathetic to Epic's way of doing business where the customer is last, the developers and their art are the pawns, and publishers are plied with sweet, predictable short-money in exchange for souls.
I've seen enough enshittification to know at this point that doing business with a bean-counting, value-wringing company hurts us all, and perhaps I'm out on a limb here but I feel like this sentiment is becoming highly solidified among many.
It just how the way the world capitalism works baby. If you don't like it best move to some communist state like China or something.
Exclusives suck for everyone. Especially when Epic started out, they only had payment processors in certain countries. This meant that some people literally had no legal way to play the Epic exclusives. I'm not sure where they stand today, but that annoyed me enough, along with other shenanigans by Epic and Sweeny, that I avoid the whole ecosystem.
Paid exclusives locking content away from other online stores. Basically trying to force me to use it is a sure fire way of making me refuse.
For me it's simply EGS paying developers to lock games only their store.
If they were just competing, trying to deliver a better product I would massively support them, similar to how I support GOG, however when you start locking content to your storez you end up with "PlayStation vs Xbox" devision of content.
This is exactly it. They're not building their brand by providing a superior service/experience or driving market prices down. They're using venture capital to fund giving away games to get you to use their wildly subpar services. They're trying to buy market position without the services to justify it.
One reason is that Epic are very dismissive of Linux, while Steam go out of their way to be supportive and GOG are supportive when it's convenient
Another is trying to lock games into exclusives with them, which other distribution platforms don't do so much
That said, if you don't play games without cross platform multiplayer and don't care about Linux support or see yourself caring any time soon, there's not a huge reason to push you towards steam and away from epic. GOG is more of an anti-DRM thing, however barring sales the price and the cut for the devs is identical on all of them and it's the same game aside from DRM.
for sure! steam liberated my machine from a windows dual boot partition. and made me go 100% linux all the time. gratitude is not really strong enough. it is more like when you have been captured, and then set free.
I don't like when huge, rich corporations pretend that they are an underdog.
On top of that, I don't like when a platform bribes developers to limit their game to one platform.
Yeah, man, screw Nintendo.
Brand perception is a universal mystery.
Generally the only games that are de facto exclusive to Nintendo are the ones they make themselves or those that choose to stay on Nintendo (I haven't heard of exclusivity deals, but I won't discount the possibility).
A better comparison might be Sony with Playstation (and maybe Microsoft with Xbox, though I haven't heard of as much from them on that) paying for exclusivity for a limited time.
Epic, on the other hand decided, at least at the start, to buy out almost finished games (some of which even had pre-orders on other storefronts) to have on their platform for at least a year. Then decided to try and play the victim, claiming that they had to do it to gain market share. Then claimed they were morally superior because they didn't charge as much to publishers for putting games on their storefront. While also charging just as much for the games to the consumers.
Microsoft don't pay for timed exclusivity. Instead they buy the companies and get exclusivity from them now being first party.
Sony have very, very few straight exclusivity deals these days, they have a super robust first party network. Nintendo and them are very comparable, in fact. Especially in that Nintendo works with more third parties or partially owned "second parties" than you'd think, since people presume anything using their IP is their game, even when it's not.
In any case, they're both as not-comparable, in that Epic games run on the same hardware and platform as Steam games, Linux compatibility aside. You don't have to pay any extra money to switch back and forth.
Epic legitimately hasn't done anything Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft haven't done on the regular. In fact, the current "boo, we hate non-Steam PC launchers" trend overlaps with the old "boo, we're pissed that former console exclusive X is going multiplatform", which was a surreal few years there.
Also, hell yeah, it's morally superior to give more of the money to the dev while charging the same up front to consumers. 100%. Every time. Epic is not doing it because they're nice, they're doing it to attract talent to their platform, which is exactly why you want competition between multiple storefronts instead of a monopoly. But that doesn't take it away from them, that's the better answer.
Fuck Nintendo to death, after listening to the abominations they committed in the Team Xecuter episode of Darknet Diaries Iām never giving them another cent.
Luckily, Yuzu runs games infinitely better than my switch anyway, so thatās awesome.
Fuck Nintendo, but fuck Xecuter more.
Anyone that follows the homebrew and CFW scene knows that Xecuter repeatedly and unapologetically ripped off the GPL-licensed components in Atmosphere and its various bootloader stages. On top of violating the licenses of and stealing from the homebrew community, they also added console-bricking DRM to their CFW. They're not heroes supporting the ideological cause of piracy; just shitbags trying to profit off of it.
ABSOLUTELY. But the guy whose life they fucked over had almost nothing to do with development. He was like a news siteā¦ guy.
Oh yeah, he was totally the fall guy and had his life ruined over it. He was made an example out of, while the rest and worst of them made bank and got away with it.
Absolute bullshit. But youāre totally right, Xecutor was mostly corrupt and shitty. I forgot about the switch bricking thing, what fuckery to do to people.
Oh, there's a ton to say about why Disney get a reputation for being a litigious nightmare but Nintendo gets more of a connection to beloved franchises in a lot of the gaming community, but that's precisely why they're a good counterexample to Steam when you're talking about branding associations.
They do the same thing that the horde of shitty streaming services do: Hold content hostage through exclusivity deals so they can gain market share without actually providing a comparable technology or service as their competitor.
The problem is that without those exclusive deals noone would change
Most people didn't buy EA games at origin or Ubisoft games at UPlay even though you needed those launchers anyway. They even didn't buy CDProjekt games at gog despite the games being dem free there.
Excluding deals on sought after games is literally the only way to get a majority of the players moving away from there comfortable "I have ally games and friends there already" position
People are lazy and hate change - without force it's not going to happen
They donāt even try to be competitive on technology or service though. If they were making a comparable or even superior product and people were sticking with Steam anyway for the network effect Iād agree theyād be justified in doing more to attract customers. But they just want to use their pile of money to buy their way into a market without putting in the work to design and develop a superior product.
Aside from the other scumbaggery that Epic does, if you do wanna play their free games then atleast use heroic so you don't use the wasteheap that is the epic games launcher.
I mostly game on my Steam Deck and assumed Heroic was only a Linux thing, but recently learned it's available on Windows too. How's it do? I've been collecting the free games from Epic and Prime Gaming, but barely touch them. Being able to open a single launcher for everything non Steam in Windows sounds amazing!
I just learned about heroic since getting my steam deck. I'll be switching over on my pc too since the Epic launcher has such a horrible ui.
I installed it today on my computer and then set up Sunshine so I could stream from it to my Steam Deck easily.
haven't tried the other platforms in heroic other than epic, it works 100% except for adding friends. You can add them via the overlay but it's incredibly janky. Then again, it's about as janky as it is on the actual launcher. But other than adding friends works great.
For starters: complete lack of features and user support. EGS gives you the game and basically no way to interact with the community around that game. They don't support Linux, which is huge for some people, but also makes some peripherals like Steamdeck that operate on Linux entirely incompatible.
Because their user support is so bad, nobody really chooses EGS to buy/play games from, so Epic tries to take that choice away buy giving payouts to publishers to only let the game be on their store for six months or longer, meaning anyone who wants to play such a game has to come to them. This is also why you see a lot of free games, EGS trying to lure people to their "service".
Which is where the real big problem comes in. Instead of user beneficial features, most of the storefront and game launcher is bloat ware that would rather show you more and more ads for other products on their store than let you get into the game you want to play. And if reports are true, advertising games already in your library. So they aren't even trying to tailor a custom user experience, they are just blasting you with a bunch of shit till something sticks (or you uninstall)
There have also been allegations of EGS scanning personal computer files outside of its install directory, which is scummy enough on its own but its also transmitting that data back to their central server, which gets handed off to Tencent, the Chinese owned company that is a big investor in Epic and has their own history of scandal and anti consumer behavior. So if this all is happening, its hard to say just what data on your computer is behind handed off to Tencent and the Chinise Government because you wanted to play a silly game on an inferior game service.
One of my biggest complaints with the EGS is their anti-competitive actions. Rather than try to out compete, rather than try to be the better choice, they pay developers to only release games on their platform, flat out barring them from releasing on any other store. They don't try to win your favor, they don't try to be a pleasant experience, they just shortcut their way to being the only option, without a care for improving any of the other faults or shortcomings.
My next complaint is that Tencent has a 40% ownership share in Epic Games, and I make active efforts to not give them a dime.
The same strategy all console-producers use
Epic wanted exclusives by pulling games from other platforms. I will never spend a single cent on Epic Games. I'm happy to spend it on Steam, especially games that I have pirated before (Commandos series for example) or indie games (Banished anyone?).
For bigger games such as Civilians, I'll purchase it on Steam and then pirate so I don't need to run Steam. I am a big fan of patches to remove the intro screen.
Intro screens and the like can usually be dealt with easily in many games. Look up the game on PCGamingWiki ā it's usually much easier (and less malware prone) than pirating.
Fun fact, many intro screen can be disabled via program flags, those are put there due to faster testing, and usually not disabled due to either laziness, the way the SW is tested, and/or because the devs have some empathy for the players not wanting to watch 15 minutes of crap - like it's "made for Nvidia"
My partner has a bunch of AC games and it's pretty much a ritual at this point to delete the launch screen logo files from the game's data folder.
For other games like CS, there's a flag to bypass the whole launcher which is really nice š if only more games did that
I like the way steam looks better and try to avoid spending money on software belonging to chinese companies like Tencent.
Steam also releases pretty cool stuff, and continues to support them way after release... My steam link got an update about three weeks ago, despite being discontinued back in 2018
Also, the steam link can run custom apps (like Moonlight for those who would want to use it for generic low latency streaming without a Steam account) and has the ability to enable a SSH server and root access. There are some limits though on what things you can modify, particularly relating to the boot sequence and the included kernel, as it has a hardware secure boot implementation. The OS is on GitHub anyway.
I will happily give my money to companies like this that actually provide value to their users, even years after the fact. Doubly so if they are domestic or western - it is so rare nowadays to find a western company that isn't blatantly and purely leeching their users
Valve is viewed in an extremely favorable light in the PC world (and Valve deserves it). Therefore plenty of gamers take Epic throwing around their Fortnite money to get exclusively for their barebones launcher and game store very personally.
Epic gives better cuts to devs and games have to opt into DRM
Enjoy the free games if you cant afford them
I wouldn't have much reason not to buy from Epic, but I also wouldn't have any reason to buy from it either. Other than free games I don't see why pick Epic over any other place. Steam has more features and GOG is DRM-free, even ItchIO has the benefit of being more supportive of smaller and upcoming game devs. Epic doesn't do anything but the basic.
Occasionally Epic had better deals on, and if I was a big developer I might be tempted by their lower fees. That would certainly be offset by lower sales though.
The Epic store will probably stop being attractive to anyone as soon as "the kids" swap Fortnite for something else. They've basically got $6 billion in spunk money every year to try and make it a good alternative to Steam. When that money dries up, the Epic store isn't going to make enough money to be worth keeping going. I doubt they'll go bust, but they won't be able to just hurl money at it to keep people interested.
Their exclusives , the anti linux stance and the store is crap too
Epic Games paid big money to make some games platform exclusive.
Their launcher is, just like Origin and Ubisoft's one, features wise vastly inferior to Steam.
Smaller indie level multiplayer games do not have crossplatform play with Steam, or other issues like DNF duel breaking player room ping indicators.
None of these explain the amount of frequency of anemosity towards Epic for their store. It seems some are in a parasocial relationship with their Steam launcher. A bit like console fanboy wars. And for some reason they prefer a monopoly without alternatives than one with alternatives. Perhaps some see the installation of another program as an intrusion to to their private comfort. Not rationally like Microsoft's ill willed
spyingtelemetry, but emotionally led. I encountered a few people who just don't want to install new programs and perhaps see Epic a threat to their habits.But I dislike them for dropping Unreal Tournament.
I dont use them explicitly for reason 1.
Buying out a game after it was already set to sell on other platforms, and after people had already preordered it from those platforms, because your store lacked such basic functions as a check out cart so no one wanted to use it put them on the curb for me permenantly.
In a capitalist system, companies get worse in quality as they think they can get away with it to improve profit. Starting your store off at such a low point for your customers tells me that they are going to drop much lower once they think they have the stable playerbase to get away with it.
So I am completely disinterested in building a library of games on a platform I see as destined to become worse than the starting line of in the gutter.
Tim Sweeney hates linux so that's why I prefer Steam over it. Even though Epic gives people free games, the games were always free anyway (unless you want multiplayer), I know you said piracy isn't an answer though.
Issues I can think of in the order they occur to me. These are off the top of my head refections not researched.
Group think: If I shop where most other people shop I have outsourced research and decision making. Is there a good reason? maybe, maybe not but I'm going to follow the masses because I can't research everything.
Stability: neither store offers physical assets so if the store shuts down my purchases could also vanish. Steam is a bigger player and appears to be more stable and GOG is DRM free.
3 The shopping experience: I personally find the layout of steam better for discovery and finding reviews. With the current epic coupon available I have looked on epic for games and if you're just browsing it is not a intuitive experience. GOG similarly has a variety of sorting tools available.
This all could be insane ramblings but these are the things that motivate me to spend my money on Gog or steam in general.
Fair enough I guess... I only use Epic for the free games, so I can't say I've spent much time genuinely looking at the user experience š .
Epic client is a spyware.
Hey can you post proof of this please?
This is the post that convinced me way back when. It's been a while; I couldn't find yet if the egs software has changed since. https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/comments/wakewr/epic_games_spyware_vs_steam_vs_as_comparision_ea/
Debunked time and time again.
Thank you for the archive .org one. I hadn't seen a direct response to the old reddit post, and the archive .org post really broke it down for me
I just don't like the launcher. It's absurdly slow and bloated even though it doesn't contain many features. On fast hardware, it takes 30s to open and lags harder than Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. It also eats up my CPU for no reason and has an invasive privacy policy. I try to use the open source Heroic launcher instead, it's much better.
Although recently Steam has moved from slow to within a stone's throw of the launching speed of the Epic Games Store. I'm now looking for an alternative to launch my Steam games.
Basically Epic like every other publisher has created their own launcher/store.
They aren't trying to compete on features and instead using profits from their franchise to buy market share (e.g. buying store exclusives).
The tone and strategy often comes off as aggressive and hostile.
For example Valve was concerned Microsoft were going to leverage their store to kill Steam. Valve has invested alot in adding windows operability to Linux and ensuring Linux is a good gaming platform. To them this is the hedge against agressive Microsoft business practices.
The Epic CEO thinks Windows is the only operating system and actively prevents Linux support and revoked Linux support from properties they bought.
As a linux user, Valve will keep getting my money and I literally can't give it to Epic because they don't want it.
Yeah, what is up with that? What's wrong with Epic and Linux?
I remember reading that they bought Rocket League and then removed Linux support. Really dumb strategy.
The owner is a piece of shit who's convinced he's smarter than everyone else and has been hostile to Linux for decades.
I personally don't give a shit about whichever store I use for gaming because I have no loyalty to Steam like a lot of the people in this thread. It's just a store and launcher. I wish people would get a grip.
I buy games where it's cheapest, whether that's GoG, Steam or Epic or anywhere else. I use the wishlist functions to make sure I can price compare on sales etc.
Do you know about https://www.isthereanydeal.com ?
Holy crap thank you so much !
There needs to always be multiple game stores to keep prices in check. Steam can not be the only option or prices will skyrocket. See game console stores for reference. I use Playnite to seamlessly bridge my game libraries from Steam, GOG, Epic, Amazon Prime, itch.io etc. This is the way.
I just don't use Epic myself but do use Gog and Steam (with the ultra shitty EA launcher and Ubisoft Connect bundled with some of my games) and Playnite has changed everything unifying it all into that single launcher.
Full screen mode in Playnite works fine on my HTPC and as a launcher it does consolidate all of them into one place easily. Worth trying if you use multiple stores.
As for why I'm not using Epic, the whole paying for exclusivity with third parties really didn't appeal to me at all.
If the free offerings from Epic do appeal to you, or if they do better deals on localised currencies (especially if you do struggle to pay for things), don't worry about using their services. I wouldn't want you to deny yourself some entertainment just because other people have issues with them as a business.
My first purchase when I'm earning enough to spend on entertainment will be a good device. The second will be games that I can either physically keep or digitally store on physical drives.
Let's hope that happens next year šÆ
Gog is the main place for that, since their principal stance is DRM-free downloadable installers. They have a launcher too, but it's optional and only meant as convenience. Itch.io does DRM-free too, but they're often more about very indie and often experimental games. They have a few all-time indie classics though.
Steam technically doesn't require the games to implement DRM, so a part of their library is DRM-free once you've passed the installation process (they don't need steam to be running). This is on a case-by-case basis though. Lots of Steam games use steamworks (Steam's very own DRM) and a lot more use third party DRMs (and even require external launchers like Ubisoft's or EA's).
For years I have been a bit pissed at Steam for opening themselves to all and every shitty fake game/quick buck asset flip there is out there, refusing to do any kind of curation. Instead they opted for letting the almighty Algorithm do that for them. I doesn't work, their store is a discoverability catastrophe full of shit.
That said, I still buy from them in some cases, and these cases are mostly down to one point : the workshop, the integrated mod and user content interface. It's for a handful of games that profit a lot from it, but it's undenyingly convenient.
What I often do if it's a possibility is buying directly from the developer, which often includes a Steam key. That's what I did for Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress (through Itch.io). It gives you everything Steam has to offer for the game and usually a DRM-free version too. Only "down point" is that your Steam review doesn't count for the game's Steam score when you have activated it from an external key. I don't care much for that.
In the end at that point you've noticed I talked about a lot of different platforms and launchers, and it's not even all of them. Like the previous poster, I can't recommend Playnite enough. It's a meta launcher that makes all of your libraries united in the same place, with a lot of options. You still require all the platforms installed, but you're not using them directly most of the time.
I've got Steam, Gog, Humble, Ubisoft, EA, Amazon, Xbox, Itch.io and yeah, even Epic through it (though I only use EGS to get the free games, I don't plan on buying anything from there).
Honestly, if their launcher wasn't so buggy and didn't refresh itself every 10 seconds, I would use Epic a lot more. They have given out a bunch of great games over the last few years I'm trying to play.
Epic Games is useful for the free games they giveaway every week, some weeks better than others. And I know the topic of ownership of these "free games" is another conversation, but I'll take advantage of it while it's there and also while giving them little to no money.
Just my personal opinion
The good clearly are the free games and that some games go cheaper there, they have better sales sometimes. The bad is that the store is badly optimized. The UI is annoying, no cloud saves for a lot of games. As of recently there were no achievements or even a cart, but they have that now which is good. The friends tab is bare bones still. They have aggressive DRM. For some reason it's a pain in the ass to log in, but that might be just on my end.
Now with GOG, you don't have DRM, you can integrate all launchers so you can launch all the games from one, which for me, is pretty useful. GOG has great deals. The bad is that the ui as well is kind of bare bones, but i don't know, they are not trying to take over the market and their store works very well.
As of steam i don't need to say anything, everything is in there. If you play on linux you basically will get every game from steam. They have the most robust launcher with the most options, etc.
That said, personally I use the three of them. Gog primarily since i can launch everything from there and if i find a game in there, i'd rather get it from them. But i've found sales on epic too good to let go so i play those games there. For me it depends on what they're offering, but for some reason i really dislike Epic's layout and ui, i feel like it is very annoying and that it is missing a lot.
Fair points.
Enshittification.
Not sure you should.
I hear GoG tends to be less DRM-y.
Fair enough.
I'll have to take a look at GoG anyway... I don't remember but I heard it's like an aggregator of some sort too, right? Like, you can access games from your steam account too or something?
Edit: Bruh this is dope.
GOG the store is just that - a store. They only sell games that have no DRM at all, which means a couple of things. One, they almost never get AAA games at release (the exception being games developed/published by CD Projekt, as CDP owns GOG), and two, there's a high likelihood that GOG will offer game versions that are out of sync with or missing features from the same game sold on other platforms (for example, if a game uses Steamworks for its multiplayer, many devs will just strip out multiplayer altogether for the GOG version rather than patching something new and store-agnostic in).
What you're thinking of with the aggregator is GOG Galaxy, which is their (completely un-required) launcher software. Unlike Steam and EGS, GOG's DRM-free nature means you can just buy games on their site, download the installers directly, and go on about your business. Downloading games, starting games, etc., is all just done manually. If you want a dedicated launcher software similar to the Steam and EGS clients, that's what GOG Galaxy is for. And as a value-add, they implemented aggregator features where you can have it pull in your library from Steam, EGS, EA/Origin, Ubisoft, etc., and just view and launch everything from the one spot. I've generally found Playnite to be a little better at being a one-stop launcher, though everyone's mileage will vary of course.
This isn't really true anymore.
Yeah after using both Playnite is better but GOG works a bit better as a ready made experience tbh. Both are great!
Playnite looks interesting.
Does it have support for linking Backloggd accounts or similar such platforms?
What installer? You mean like apps?
GOG Galaxy let's you combine most of your game library in to one but it has it's issues. GOG, Epic and Microsoft Store all work great but the other clients aren't officially supported.
Epic doesn't have the game time sync, but that's an Epic issue I believe.
Playnite is a better free option for a library manager and the steam integration doesnāt break constantly.
https://playnite.link/
Edit 2: (replied because I got some error when editing comment a second time...)
Okay nevermind. Thought it was too good to be true... why open with an in-app browser?
This is to be expected and don't let it turn you off using Galaxy. Once set up you can automatically launch (and close) the game and client from here without seeing the other apps.
It does work with Steam, Ubisoft etc but the login will expire every week and need reconnecting.
Oh yeah. No, absolutely not... I logged in...
I installed one game, uninstalled another.
Waiting to get time to play using GoG soon.
Also, do we know if there's any integration with services like IGDB?
It's the only way they can ensure it works, I suppose. They might need to control specific cookies and reported supposed clients depending on plugins, and so a packaged in-app browser for the login is easiest. Playnite does the same thing.
To be clear, it's not less DRM-y, it's straight up DRM-free.
They had a poll at one point asking the community whether they were fine with DRM-enabled games and/or modern releases. As I understand it, the community said yea to modern games, nay to DRM, so now they do games of all ages but only if they're willing to give up on DRM.
I'm amazed they haven't turned back on that, because a couple years ago they were bleeding money and you can tell they really need to cut costs or increase revenue somewhere. But hey, at least you can back up your library.
GoG isn't terrible, but is a little bit of a pain with Linux. They don't have native support with the desktop client. Although, there are things like "Heroic Launcher" and "Lutris" that work well as a substitute. Granted most of my experience with those are on my Steam Deck. And it just caused too much pain to get CP2077 working for me. That I got it again on Steam when it went on sale.
As someone who seldom plays with friends (I have very few who want to play online), I just pick the store where the games are the cheapest or there's a sale or something. It doesn't really affect me that much.
But if all your friends are on steam, then check before getting a game on Epic, sometimes they don't let you play together. Most of the time they do, though.
Nothing is wrong with it. It is just another games store.
I refuse to patronize Epic until they continue working on UT4. I've been playing their games for 25 years and they make fortnite then decide to just drop all of their long term fans.
UT = Unreal Tournament, yes?
My dad got me that game on his old laptop when I was a kid. It barely ran, but boy was it exciting ā¤ļø.
The Plasma gun was my favourite š«”. Especially in that space level... The one where you could jump outside the windows.
I have a bone to pick with Epic regarding Unreal Engine as well. Terrible optimisation. Any game I play, if made using UE, is terrible.
I've played the first two of the Tomb Raider trilogy on medium on my 4GB GTX 1650, i7 9th Gen, 16GB RAM laptop. This device has pushed me through my engineering and still continues to run most of my work. It also runs Forza Horizon 4 and Red Dead Redemption 2 good enough.
Yet I install Deliver Us Mars, a game with a much smaller scale, and my beautiful beast starts to stutter. š« š« š«
Yeah. They had an alpha out for a while and just deserted it after fortnite took off. I really enjoyed playing it, too.
The optimization is kind of up to the devs. It's fairly accessible to all sorts of people with varying levels of skill, but you still have to identify bottlenecks and move to c++ sometimes. Making it easy to implement in the editor means some people will make shit they can't optimize or support.
As for minor issues, EGS does not have feature parity with Steam or GOG. They don't have user reviews, for example. This makes it a worse user experience.
More importantly, Epic has a habit of anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior. When EGS first launched, they were keen on doing console-style timed exclusives, even for games that were already purchasable on platforms like Steam.
Lastly, Epic has a history of neglecting or shutting down games. A few of their older games were taken offline permanently when Fortnite started gaining traction. They then purchased a few studios, namely Psyonix (makers of Rocket League), Mediatonic (Fall Guys), and Harmonix (Rock Band/Guitar Hero series). These studios seem to be a shell of what they used to be. Psyonix's first major project under Epic was Rocket Racing in Fortnite, and this project seemed to be prioritized over Rocket League and even caused the removal of core features of Rocket League. Harmonix worked on Fortnite Festival, but that came at the cost of Fuser, which shut down and was delisted about a year after launch. As for Mediatonic, I don't think they worked on anything else yet, but a large portion of the studio was recently laid off. Needless to say, fans of the affected studios aren't happy with Epic as they're being treated as 2nd-class citizens compared to Fortnite players.
Regarding the user reviews, I would much rather prefer stores integrating with existing sites like IGDB rather than have independent review systems.
But that's fine I guess.
Epicās customer service sucks. Consider my last experience from a prior xmas sale:
So, fuck them. I only claim free games from them now.
And I concur with problems other people have mentioned.
The names of their support agents is truly odd. Iāve seen people post complaints about their support that is little more than this:
Hilariously bad.
That sounds about right. Iāve gotten a few replies back then that I would assume were AI generated if I received them this year.
The first major issue for me was that the launcher was a crypto miner and they didn't tell anyone.
Since then, I have 0 trust in them and refuse to install the launcher. I don't care for the "free games"
Was there any actual proof of this, aside from someone posing the question on Reddit because of high CPU usage? At least give genuine reasons.
Whatever it is, the launcher is just bad in general. May I reccommend Heroic Games Launcher instead? You log in, get authenticated, and then it can download the games directly from the source, without ever having to run this god awful launcher.
Is this true? AFAIK the reason sometimes the launcher took a lot of resources to run is because Epic actually uses UE to make EGS.
No, of course it's not true. Somehow people still upvote some random conspiracy theory from a fortnite subreddit...
Steam and GOG are simply better platforms overall. If you really care about being DRM free and owning your games you go GOG route, otherwise Steam is the king. Epic does not even have a review system.
Epic however is the best source of free games on PC. A lot of the latest games I have played have been from Epic giveaways. Right now they have Outer Worlds and yesterday it was Ghostwire: Tokyo, both of these games I played few months ago after purchasing them through Humble Bundle.
Will I ever buy a game on Epic? Probably not, I prefer Steam, but those that simply refuse to redeem freebies and install their launcher while shouting things like it being spyware are weird.
There's not really a good answer other than convenience. Folks view Steam as the benevolent convenient monopoly. They want it to be their store for everything, their launcher for everything, their friends and social networks for all gaming on PC and what not. Epic is behind on feature parity and function, but even if it did have parity, I think gamers still want the convenience of one store/library/friends list.
Pure speculation: of the people who don't like Epic, maybe 25% are legitimate, principled objections to their business practices. The rest are split evenly between people who just want to manage their entire library on a single platform, and folks just going along for the hate-ride because it seems like the "safe" position to take.
From a technical stance, Steam and GOG are superior platforms (for different reasons). For equal-price purchases, I can't think of a single reason to choose Epic over other options. But claiming a game for free? That doesn't make anyone a bad person.
Hmm...
I'll be honest, I definitely prefer having everything on one platform for convenience. This is in second place; right after letting me play a game directly from the icon without having to open the damn launcher in the first place.
Also, I am not well educated about the technicalities of Steam or GoG, so all I can say is I'm enjoying the cool factor of GoG combining my accounts in one place. Kinda bummed that Epic's integration doesn't have game time and achievement sync... But that's probably an Epic thing.
Also also, fuck yeah! If it's free, I'm in š.
Playnite can do game time from Epic and Steam, plus its own accounting for any .exe you can launch through it.
They're partially owned by Tencent, a big Chinese company. And as Chinese companies are, the government has direct influence over them. And while Tencent is not a majority owner, Tim Sweeney happily took Chinese money and now pays his co-owner a portion of the profits which then go to pay for Chinese gulags.
There are many things, especially hardware, where it's impossible to avoid Chinese companies but simply buying games somewhere else is super easy. It's obviously not a perfect system because even on GOG there are games using UE, but just buying games somewhere else is such a low barrier, it's not an inconvenience at all.
That said, claiming the free games doesn't help them. It helps the developers making those games because Epic has to pay them and won't get anything in return if that doesn't result in users leaving money in EGS for other things.