Why is Epic Games Store giving "exposure" mostly to titles that don't really need it?

[708]

Epic Store was announced a few days ago and while I have fundamental problems with it due to Epic moneyhatting games, this thread isn't about that.
One supposed benefit that this store provides according to some users is that it provides indies much needed "exposure". If that's the case, why is it mostly picking titles that don't really need extra exposure rather than titles that could REALLY benefit from it?
Just take a look at confirmed games for the store. Supergiant is an indie darling and is - already - really successful. Journey is an award-winning PS exclusive that doesn't really need it. Hello Neighbour's previous installment was popular with youtubers and streamers and thus really successful. Ashen had precense on Microsoft's E3 and has a publisher behind it. SMB and Subnautica are both multi-million sellers. And the list goes on. Of course there are a few titles on the store that could benefit from some exposure, but my point remains that most titles on the store don't really need extra exposure, and there are tens of good indie games relesasing each month that really really need as much exposure as possible.
What do you think about this?

 

[Ben Walker]

They need to launch their store with titles that people recognise so those customers can build a library, *then* the indies will start to come.

 

[Rodjer]

Of course, Epic Games don't have the balls to moneyhat a small or unknown studio, they need the big guys in the indie scene in their platform.

 

[Terminus]

It's not about exposure for the games, it's about exposure for the store.

 

[0451]

There's a lot of uncertainty involved if they were to moneyhat unknown but interesting games considering their platform is new and unproven right now. The current lineup and initiative is meant to benefit Epic more than the developers.

 

[DGenerator]

One supposed benefit that this store provides according to some users

Click to shrink...

I don't know who said that. The biggest benefit, on paper, is the 88% cut for developers, not exposure. Epic is selling the worth of their store.

Strawmanning arguments from the vague "they" based on nothing coming from Epic's end is ... a choice.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

Visibility of indie games was never the purpose of the store. Visibility of the store was the purpose.

If Epic wanted to help smaller indie games, they wouldn't be using such a strict curation system which prevents the smaller indie studios who actually need the help from even getting onto the store to begin with.

 

[Shinzen]

It's obvious that it's not about exposure to the games but rather exposure for the client. Having proven, popular indie titles exclusively on the platform is a way to sway people into downloading the launcher and becoming part of their ecosystem. Of course for the publishers it also provides visibility being on a smaller platform but the benefit of this is yet to be seen.

 

[entrydenied]

The thing with indie studios is that previous games being successful don't always translate to their next good game being successful as well. It can take a while for indie studios to build their brand and for them to be able to reach out to repeat customers. It's not unheard of for studios to fall into obscurity, sadly.

 

[Ichi]

because popular titles sell? would anyone care about the Epic store if it's marketing indie #3944 that didn't review well, didn't sell well, etc.?

 

[dude]

That's a curated store for you. The small guys can't get in, and Epic has no reason to want the little guys at this point.

This is why I don't give a damn about the 88/12 rev-share model, even as an indie dev. Nice for the big guys, but it's not doing Jack for most of the industry.

 

[Derrick01]

It's not really about exposure it's about moneyhatting "big" games that Epic thinks will lure millions of people over to the store.

 

[Nestunt]

To support lesser known creators you need a supportive infrastructure. And you only get to build said structure if you have an audience and consumers. AND you only get the attention of that population if you get the known creators first.

 

[gabegabe]

They're not giving exposure, they're using the exposure of these games to get people to buy them on their store.

 

[Arrakis]

SMB and Subnautica are going to be free though , how much money are they going to be making due to exposure of FREE

 

[Devilgunman]

Epic didn't moneyhat those well-known indies to give them exposure. They did it to make their product (Epic store) more attractive. It's the same type of moneyhatting that the console makers have done for years.

 

[TheRaidenPT]

I think you are looking wrong at this.. It's the store not the games.

 

[weebro]

Supergiant's last game, Pyre flew under the radar pretty hard if not outright flopped. No one ever talks about. Its a great game. Its a shame.

I think Hades is getting more attention because of the Epic exclusivity. It would have gotten buried on Steam as just another early access indie.

 

[ghostcrew]

Please use one of the many existing threads to discuss this, as there are a large number of threads regarding this at the moment.