Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,194
Following the announcement that Metro Exodus would be pulled from Steam 2 weeks before release and not sold until a year later, it seems people skipped one another MAJOR aspect of that announcement:
It seems like Metro Exodus will be removed from sale from ALL the other competing storefronts.
Humble Store doesn't sell the game anymore:
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/metro-exodus

Despite being on preorder a few days ago:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3L-4TNR25wJ:https://www.humblebundle.com/store/metro-exodus+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr

But also from Razer Game Store (which was selling it for 48 dollars), Fanatical or GreenManGaming.
And while we have yet to know if it'll come back at the same time as Steam or before... the situation today is the following:
Before Epic's move, 5 stores were selling from prices ranging from 45 dollars/euros to 60 dollars/euros.
After Epic's move, 1 store is selling it, for only one price of 50 dollars in USA (cheaper than Steam but more expensive than other places that used to sell it) or 60€ (same as Steam and more expensive as other places).

We basically arrived in a situation where what people called competition led to a situation where they are the ONLY place selling a game at only one price.
With such policy, this is an actual move that is hurting the market as a whole and set a bad precedent for what some would actually call a monopoly.
 

Potterson

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,423
I don't mind another app but I think Epic should add some options and functions FIRST (forums, user reviews, screen sharing etc) and then make deals for exclusive titles.
 

AHA-Lambda

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,246
Wasn't there also a rumour that the same thing would happen with Division 2 after it launched?

This is what a monopoly looks like.
One platform. One store. One price.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,819
new jersey
Exclusive deals are a blight on our industry. Valve never made exclusive deals with publishers to keep games on Steam. A game's only exclusive to Steam out of the publisher's choice. Epic has a toxic way of trying to muscle in the market. They're trying to be the monopoly, not make the market better for everyone.
 

KratosEnergyDrink

Using an alt account to circumvent a ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,523
Anyway such deals have a good side: It could force Steam improve conditions for developers. They did this already for very big publishers but the ones who really need better conditions there are smaller publishers.
 

JDazzle

Member
Nov 6, 2017
107
Right now Epic has nothing that I'm willing to install another client to access. I'm willing to wait a year for Metro Exodus and then longer for the holiday sale that will allow me to get it for cheap.

I think all this means is that we are getting timed exclusives like those seen on consoles, but with longer delays. I really feel this will only hurt Epic in the future, but I have no facts or historical data to back that feeling up.
 

CountAntonius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,811
Will just become more common given how many games utilize the unreal engine. I just hope they throw some of that money into improving their launcher and it's features because right now it's not worth using outside of exclusive titles.

Right now Epic has nothing that I'm willing to install another client to access. I'm willing to wait a year for Metro Exodus and then longer for the holiday sale that will allow me to get it for cheap.

I think all this means is that we are getting timed exclusives like those seen on consoles, but with longer delays. I really feel this will only hurt Epic in the future, but I have no facts or historical data to back that feeling up.
I doubt it. Exclusivity is the only reason someone would buy a game on Epic store rather than Steam right now. Once people buy into the ecosystem buying other games on there will be easier. It was a smart move but not a popular one.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,286
Unpopular opinion, but I still think this is a legitimate tactic. A lot of platforms do it and it's always been a part of the gaming landscape in one way or another. It's lazy and it doesn't really benefit anyone and it's awesome that valve abstains from this behavior, but I don't quite hate it.
 

Passle

Alt-account.
Member
Jan 22, 2019
50
I think what they mean about increasing competition is it means Steam will need to offer similar exclusives, or push other titles, to fill the gap of not having Metro: Exodus on its platform. Which will happen. I have a meeting tomorrow specifically about this.
 

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,231
Chesire, UK
After Epic's move, 1 store is selling it, for only one price of 50 dollars in USA (cheaper than Steam but more expensive than other places that used to sell it) or 60€ (same as Steam and more expensive as other places).
Yes, this is the same issue as other Epic Store exclusives. It's not increasing competition, it's creating a monopoly.

It's total garbage.
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,194
Unpopular opinion, but I still think this is a legitimate tactic. A lot of platforms do it and it's always been a part of the gaming landscape in one way or another. It's lazy and it doesn't really benefit anyone and it's awesome that valve abstains from this behavior, but I don't quite hate it.

If we were to look at things through the lens of businesses, we could justify the worst practices in the market.
 

Liberteer

Member
Dec 8, 2018
43
Sarajevo
Capitalism. It's not free market, nor competition as many are stating. I wonder... if Humble Bundle was selling a game and let you pick between Steam and Epic Store key, which one would be chosen by most players.
 

Majukun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,359
if people didn't want dnr ,they had to worry way before than now

if people think that a new player in a Steam monopolized market can enter and compete by playing "fair", they are delusional.

developers are entitled to sell their games wherever they so desire at the cost of alienating part of their player base.

with all the anti consumer shit we have been subjected to in the last decade or so, epic's new business adventure it's very lowon the list, at least for me.
 

Innolis

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,050
I understand the anger particularly from non-US gamers. But I don't see how this is bad for "the market", at least not now. If anything it'll be bad for 4A if the move ends up not being profitable enough for them (as in, if the amount of sales they make out of the epic store + whatever epic gave them for the exclusivity ends up being less than the projected sales of having the game available on the other fronts) and for Epic, if consumers decide they don't want their store and skip the game altogether (it is still available in other platforms after all).

Also, if the move ends up not working out for the publishers / developers, they'll just pull a Shadow of the Tomb raider and not have any exclusivity. In the end, the market will regulate itself. It's a problem for a section of gamers for sure, but for Epic I think this is a sound business decision.
 

meschio94

Member
Jan 26, 2018
31
We should be gratefoul because developer can get a great cut

Yeah we costumers are the one who get fu***d, cause we lost some features, but developers are happy!

Now, if I were not a consumer in this scenario, I will probably be happier
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,194
if people didn't want dnr ,they had to worry way before than now

if people think that a new player in a Steam monopolized market can enter and compete by playing "fair", they are delusional.

developers are entitled to sell their games wherever they so desire at the cost of alienating part of their player base.

with all the anti consumer shit we have been subjected to in the last decade or so, epic's new business adventure it's very lowon the list, at least for me.

A bad behaviour doesn't justify a worse behaviour.


I understand the anger particularly from non-US gamers. But I don't see how this is bad for "the market", at least not now. If anything it'll be bad for 4A if the move ends up not being profitable enough for them (as in, if the amount of sales they make out of the epic store + whatever epic gave them for the exclusivity ends up being less than the projected sales of having the game available on the other fronts) and for Epic, if consumers decide they don't want their store and skip the game altogether (it is still available in other platforms after all).

It is explained in the first post:
Before the game was sold on multiple places at different prices.
Now it'll be sold in one place at one price.
 

Stardestroyer

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,819
Exclusive deals are a blight on our industry. Valve never made exclusive deals with publishers to keep games on Steam. A game's only exclusive to Steam out of the publisher's choice. Epic has a toxic way of trying to muscle in the market.
Different Market conditions require different tactics. In the past, Valve had very little competition so of course it did not need to make exclusive deals. In this age of steam's dominance, why would gamer be willing to join EPIC when valve exist?

New competition need a way to create incentives for people to use their services over valve. Here is an example, if google released a console that had nothing more than third party games and had no killer exclusive app, would you buy it? Most people are going to say no, this is the exact same scenario except that for some strange reason PC gamers seem to think more competition is bad?

Look at recent steam sales, they haven't been as good as in the past because valve doesn't have to worry about providing a decent service, since everyone is going to use them anyways. Monopolies are never great in the long run.
 

Passle

Alt-account.
Member
Jan 22, 2019
50
If anything it'll be bad for 4A if the move ends up not being profitable enough for them (as in, if the amount of sales they make out of the epic store + whatever epic gave them for the exclusivity ends up being less than the projected sales of having the game available on the other fronts) and for Epic, if consumers decide they don't want their store and skip the game altogether (it is still available in other platforms after all).
I say with some professional certainty that they've made a profit on the game solely through this deal.
 

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,552
This whole situation reminds me of Tidal where they had tons of star power backing it, better music quality, exclusive content, and paid out bigger royalties and it still failed because people care more about a convenient, robust experience than 1-2 exclusive games and the devs getting more. It's sad but an 80/20 split means nothing to the consumer if your storefront sucks.
 

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,480
This doesn't hurt the market in the least. It seems fairly healthy to me. Exclusivity isn't going to rock the foundation of the PC gaming ecosystem. Ultimately, if the Epic store gains traction it will be a very, very good thing for developers and consumers. Resist the urge to panic, OP.
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,194
I say with some professional certainty that they've made a profit on the game solely through this deal.

So as a lot of people suspected: They indeed moneyhatted Deep Silver.


This doesn't hurt the market in the least. It seems fairly healthy to me. Exclusivity isn't going to rock the foundation of the PC gaming ecosystem.

You'll have a hard time to explain how removing choice and raising prices doesn't hurt the market and seems healthy.
 

ShiftyHermit

Member
Oct 27, 2017
369
One way for the other storefronts to combat this type of tactic is to not offer Metro at all even after that year exclusivity deal. You'd have to think that devs/publishers would be very wary of not having their game on some (if not the most popular) storefronts.

That way a particular storefront would have to spend considerably more money to get the publisher to agree to the deal. Which may deter this from becoming too commonplace.
 

Arulan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,388
Of course it is. It's also difficult to have a sincere conversation about it with a community that has only known practices like this. Consoles revolve around exclusivity deals, big PR events, yearly AAA blockbusters, and so-forth. From this perspective, Valve appears like they're not active enough in making deals, they don't put on a big show, or develop AAA titles frequently enough. They appear like they're doing nothing, when in fact they're doing more for the platform than anyone. And now we have Epic, which are making moves that a lot of console users can relate to.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,363
This whole situation reminds me of Tidal where they had tons of star power backing it, better music quality, exclusive content, and paid out bigger royalties and it still failed because people care more about a convenient, robust experience than 1-2 exclusive games and the devs getting more. It's sad but an 80/20 split means nothing to the consumer if your storefront sucks.
And that’s why Epic is continuing to get more exclusive games than just “1-2.”

Also, the game being $10 cheaper means a lot to consumers. That’s real money that stays in your pocket.
 

Kade

Member
Oct 25, 2017
849
Canada
It's not a monopoly because I can use Ninja's referral link or DrDisrespect's. The consumer still has a choice.
 

Haze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,450
Atlanta, GA
I think what they mean about increasing competition is it means Steam will need to offer similar exclusives, or push other titles, to fill the gap of not having Metro: Exodus on its platform. Which will happen. I have a meeting tomorrow specifically about this.
It's one thing if Epic was delivering exclusive titles that they published/developed. But this tactic of money hatting third party exclusives is scummy as hell. And then they wait till the last minute to do this.

What happens with my Steam key from CDKeys?
 

Lothars

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
5,975
Different Market conditions require different tactics. In the past, Valve had very little competition so of course it did not need to make exclusive deals. In this age of steam's dominance, why would gamer be willing to join EPIC when valve exist?

New competition need a way to create incentives for people to use their services over valve. Here is an example, if google released a console that had nothing more than third party games and had no killer exclusive app, would you buy it? Most people are going to say no, this is the exact same scenario except that for some strange reason PC gamers seem to think more competition is bad?

Look at recent steam sales, they haven't been as good as in the past because valve doesn't have to worry about providing a decent service, since everyone is going to use them anyways. Monopolies are never great in the long run.
Epic games method isn't good competition when all they do is moneyhat games and buy exclusives for a year. So when those games sell way less than they would have if they were not exclusive. I hope those publishers and devs are not complaining about sales and I hope people avoid those games until they are no longer exclusive.
 

tuxfool

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,469
This whole situation reminds me of Tidal where they had tons of star power backing it, better music quality, exclusive content, and paid out bigger royalties and it still failed because people care more about a convenient, robust experience than 1-2 exclusive games and the devs getting more. It's sad but an 80/20 split means nothing to the consumer if your storefront sucks.
The issue here isn't even the exclusive nature, but the fact that they're effectively pulling the rug out under potential consumers, at the last minute.

They're actively antagonizing customers, that might otherwise be willing to try out a new service provided there was some value. These deals just harden people's stances against them.
 

Spyder_Monkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,552
And that’s why Epic is continuing to get more exclusive games than just “1-2.”

Also, the game being $10 cheaper means a lot to consumers. That’s real money that stays in your pocket.
You're getting fooled by that trickle down bullshit again. They're doing it because they know there would be backlash and selling it for $10 less takes the sting out of it. And if you read the OP other storefronts were selling it for even cheaper.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,593
Agreed. Moneyhats really have no place in the PC market. Compete through features or consumer-friendly practices, not by paying developers to remove choice from customers.
 

m_dorian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,117
Athens, Greece
I do not like it either because i find the deal scummy. I could get by it if the game was not available for sale/preorder on other stores but it was not.
I also do not like the Steam 30% cut and i want it to change but i do not fool my self thinking that Epic is #ForTheDevelopers.
 
Last edited:

joeygreco1985

Member
Oct 27, 2017
791
You bet your ass as soon as this game shows up on Steam a year later its not going to be discounted. Key shop discounts are gone
 

2n2

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,662
This doesn't hurt the market in the least. It seems fairly healthy to me. Exclusivity isn't going to rock the foundation of the PC gaming ecosystem.
I can't speak for everyone, but the number of PC games I buy at launch is directly related to the prices I can get on third party sellers. (GMG, Fanatical, Voidu, etc). I only buy older games on Steam when they have dropped in price low enough by comparison.

How does removing the ability to shop around for the best price for the platform which has the most beneficial features to me not hurt me as a consumer?
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,593
Unpopular opinion, but I still think this is a legitimate tactic. A lot of platforms do it and it's always been a part of the gaming landscape in one way or another. It's lazy and it doesn't really benefit anyone and it's awesome that valve abstains from this behavior, but I don't quite hate it.
I hate it with a passion because it offers absolutely nothing to customers while also removing choice from them. It is literally the worst possible way to 'compete'.
 

Windu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,718
meh. the game can still be bought on the same hardware and OS that I am using. just a different storefront.

Exclusive deals suck when they require you to buy another device. Otherwise, this is basically a store on the same street having an item exclusively sold in their store.

The main issue is these storefronts have certain features that are locking people into their ecosystem one way or the other. Preferably stuff like that would be more cross platform and the OS would handle the library management.
 

Dakkon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
513
weird you misspelled Steam by typing "Epic" in the title
How is Steam's way of competing harmful to the market? Valve doesn't force anyone to release on Steam and only Steam, anyone who releases to Steam is free to release their games anywhere they want with no penalty. Steam tries to compete by providing features consumers & developers can take advantage of - Steam's controller API, refunds, reviews, forums, Steam Workshop, Steam Guides, etc.

Epic's method of competing is just buying people off for exclusivity to force the consumer onto their platform even if their platform has worse features.

The physical version of this is if Metro Exodus was only buyable at Wal-mart because Wal-mart wanted to compete with Gamestop and rather than compete on pricing/warranty/refunds/features they were just like "lol no product 4 u".

Making a platform compelling enough for consumers & developers to want to put their games on their is good business and competition. Paying people off because you know your platform is so inadequate people wouldn't use it otherwise is just lazy.