• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

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

Isee

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,329
yes?

i would understand the outrage if dnr was a new thing on PC, but we've had it for more than a decade at this point,steam itself is drm and holds the exclusive of hundreds if not thousands of games even if indirectly and with no real exclusivity contract.

once the system is in place,it's a develper's right to choose where to sell its games
1. DNR=?
2. If you mean DRM, I didn't make a statement about DRM in my post, so okay? No idea what you are rambling on about tbh.
3. I tried to be sarcastic/funny. I wanted to point out that wanting to combat a "monopoly" by shuting out people from alternatives is comical to me. "Let's fight a monopoly, by starting to build a monopoly on certain games" kind of logic that some people like to use when saying:"epic needs to buy third party products, it's the only way to attack the steam monopoly."
4. Please show me where I said that the deal between Kochmedia/DeepSilver and epic is illegal. They have every right to be as dirty as they want to, nobody in this thread is questioning this. People just don't like it and they have the right to discuss and to complain about it.
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
All good suggestions, and all things Stream can quickly match, to therefore nullify them as viable selling points

You know what Stream can’t do that Epic can right now?

Sell you Metro Exodus
"Steam can quickly match"
I don't know. First you said it took them 15 years to get there. Now they can quickly match it.
But yeah it'd require actual competition.

As for that, you're right. That's what Epic can do right now:
Alienate a product and price fixing.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,393
Because it's only good for the handpicked, already high profile developers they are moneyhatting and not the panacea it's been sold as for the rest of the thousands of independent developers who are fighting in a super competitive industry and also yearning free from the shackles of Steam and the supposed mountains of shit software it "promotes". It goes ignored because it has been argued plenty of times before and like most arguments in recent PC threads it falls on deaf ears.

Independent studios beefs with Valve have been lengthy and for a variety of reasons. First it was that the gates were locked and a lot of studios couldn't get in and their curation process wasn't transparent. Between the humble bundles and prominent sales there was a gold rush for what we would now consider lower or middle of the road quality games which would end up on everyone's library simply because building up a collection of varied, affordable, community driven releases was desirable. Sales were platform wide events that garnered ridiculous amounts of attention and Valve's experimenting with different models (Free to play, hats, sales achievements, rewards (including whole games) for participating and logging in daily, the marketplace, etc. etc. etc.).

Then as more and more games made it into the system competition got more fierce and sales and cheap bundle keys got abused, indies starting lamenting the "devaluation" of independent games (something they happily contributed to as long as it was insanely profitable) and asked for more curation tools. Things like the Greenlight system happened, and other multiple competing stores and models started to pop up outside of Valve. Some failed, some are still around, greenlight got abused by developers and customers alike and imperfect a system as it as, it also became a point of contention for them.

Then the doors were truly opened to allow all of those frustrated independent developers out there who were still struggling to get in, in an attempt to make the field more fair. But the downside of course is that there is even more competition and more quality games. But it's not the only thing that has happened either. In the time all of this came to be, tools and engines have made it easier for a lot of people to make quality stuff. Plenty of storied developers long in the tooth at large publishing houses left their ranks to do smaller stuff. Kickstarter and indiegogo happened. Twitch and influencers happened, where a pewdiepide figure can play a game like flappy bird and propel it to be played by millions on his popularity alone. Major developments in the industry and market make it so that sure fire hits like Audiosurf and Beat Hazard and Winterbottom and whatever Runner wouldn't stand out anymore. We have GOTY quality stuff constantly standing out from the independent market every month, and that competition resulted in fewer dollars from consumers to go around. Then the sights moved to Steam's cut, an industry standard cut that suddenly became unfair because the platform continues to grow while these guaranteed successes dried up or became subject to many other factors.

Discoverability has become an issue of a thriving industry not just for Valve, but Steam gets a lot of the stick for it instead of all the above causes for the flooding the PC and independent space has seen. Some games have suffered, yes, but if you mean to tell me that Epic's approach is "good for the industry and for consumers" because it provides economic stability to an insignificant % of already well established independent developers I have a very long bridge to sell you. If you are one of the lucky ones to get on the ground floor of their platform launch and aggressive PR moves, good for you. I don't see how that improves the industry when it's a crapshoot the developers most affected will ever benefit from it. Epic's plan is to eventually open its store for submissions and release around 150 to 200 games A MONTH. Do you think they are going to guarantee the financial well-being of all those games like they are doing for a handful of high profiles now? Do you think they will not run into the same discoverability issues? And even worse, all their plans for influencers to dictate and directly benefit from being the high profile players of the curation process will bring about a whole host of other nasty issues when it comes to healthy competition.

The market is competitive and a lot of studios won't make it even though they totally feel they are entitled to a piece of the pie. Like people love reminding us when stanning for Epic's brand of "shark" competition, this is a business. Businesses fail. No one has a guaranteed market. Good games are competing against other increasingly great offerings more and more. This perfect, smartly curated launcher where the cut is in the single digits, submission is fast and hassle free, the developer is shielded from every negative opinion, where every passionate and hardworking independent developer big and small who considers themselves worthy of the PC market's attention, who will benefit from the same visibility that AAA stuff does, that will be able find a wide audience at full price forever without involving 3rd party storefronts, is a dream that will never exist. Steam is far from perfect, but to believe moneyhatting exclusives and taking purchasing options away from consumers is good for everyone and will lead to more, better games, is disingenuous at best.
This needs to be stickied for every person that wanders into the thread asking why people are bothered.
 

Arkanius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,788
Because it's only good for the handpicked, already high profile developers they are moneyhatting and not the panacea it's been sold as for the rest of the thousands of independent developers who are fighting in a super competitive industry and also yearning free from the shackles of Steam and the supposed mountains of shit software it "promotes". It goes ignored because it has been argued plenty of times before and like most arguments in recent PC threads it falls on deaf ears.

Independent studios beefs with Valve have been lengthy and for a variety of reasons. First it was that the gates were locked and a lot of studios couldn't get in and their curation process wasn't transparent. Between the humble bundles and prominent sales there was a gold rush for what we would now consider lower or middle of the road quality games which would end up on everyone's library simply because building up a collection of varied, affordable, community driven releases was desirable. Sales were platform wide events that garnered ridiculous amounts of attention and Valve's experimenting with different models (Free to play, hats, sales achievements, rewards (including whole games) for participating and logging in daily, the marketplace, etc. etc. etc.).

Then as more and more games made it into the system competition got more fierce and sales and cheap bundle keys got abused, indies starting lamenting the "devaluation" of independent games (something they happily contributed to as long as it was insanely profitable) and asked for more curation tools. Things like the Greenlight system happened, and other multiple competing stores and models started to pop up outside of Valve. Some failed, some are still around, greenlight got abused by developers and customers alike and imperfect a system as it as, it also became a point of contention for them.

Then the doors were truly opened to allow all of those frustrated independent developers out there who were still struggling to get in, in an attempt to make the field more fair. But the downside of course is that there is even more competition and more quality games. But it's not the only thing that has happened either. In the time all of this came to be, tools and engines have made it easier for a lot of people to make quality stuff. Plenty of storied developers long in the tooth at large publishing houses left their ranks to do smaller stuff. Kickstarter and indiegogo happened. Twitch and influencers happened, where a pewdiepide figure can play a game like flappy bird and propel it to be played by millions on his popularity alone. Major developments in the industry and market make it so that sure fire hits like Audiosurf and Beat Hazard and Winterbottom and whatever Runner wouldn't stand out anymore. We have GOTY quality stuff constantly standing out from the independent market every month, and that competition resulted in fewer dollars from consumers to go around. Then the sights moved to Steam's cut, an industry standard cut that suddenly became unfair because the platform continues to grow while these guaranteed successes dried up or became subject to many other factors.

Discoverability has become an issue of a thriving industry not just for Valve, but Steam gets a lot of the stick for it instead of all the above causes for the flooding the PC and independent space has seen. Some games have suffered, yes, but if you mean to tell me that Epic's approach is "good for the industry and for consumers" because it provides economic stability to an insignificant % of already well established independent developers I have a very long bridge to sell you. If you are one of the lucky ones to get on the ground floor of their platform launch and aggressive PR moves, good for you. I don't see how that improves the industry when it's a crapshoot the developers most affected will ever benefit from it. Epic's plan is to eventually open its store for submissions and release around 150 to 200 games A MONTH. Do you think they are going to guarantee the financial well-being of all those games like they are doing for a handful of high profiles now? Do you think they will not run into the same discoverability issues? And even worse, all their plans for influencers to dictate and directly benefit from being the high profile players of the curation process will bring about a whole host of other nasty issues when it comes to healthy competition.

The market is competitive and a lot of studios won't make it even though they totally feel they are entitled to a piece of the pie. Like people love reminding us when stanning for Epic's brand of "shark" competition, this is a business. Businesses fail. No one has a guaranteed market. Good games are competing against other increasingly great offerings more and more. This perfect, smartly curated launcher where the cut is in the single digits, submission is fast and hassle free, the developer is shielded from every negative opinion, where every passionate and hardworking independent developer big and small who considers themselves worthy of the PC market's attention, who will benefit from the same visibility that AAA stuff does, that will be able find a wide audience at full price forever without involving 3rd party storefronts, is a dream that will never exist. Steam is far from perfect, but to believe moneyhatting exclusives and taking purchasing options away from consumers is good for everyone and will lead to more, better games, is disingenuous at best.
Hey man, just asking questions /s

Fantastic post
 

oni-link

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,833
UK
"Steam can quickly match"
I don't know. First you said it took them 15 years to get there. Now they can quickly match it.
But yeah it'd require actual competition.

As for that, you're right. That's what Epic can do right now:
Alienate a product and price fixing.
No, I said it would take Epic years to build a feature set that not only catches up to Steam, but surpasses it

Steam will and has always been improving, so Epic would have to beat them at their own game, in less time

Steam, as the market leader with the best client, would be able to easily see what a weaker competitor is doing and act to counter them

One of your suggestions was give away free games when you buy a new game, Valve could implement that in seconds and then that advantage for Epic is nullified

I'm still not arguing (nor have I ever argued) buying exclusives is good for the consumer, but in the short term it will get people to engage with the Epic store

I hope Epic spend too much on exclusives and ultimately decide it's not a viable long term strategy, or I hope they only do this for a short period of time before opting to use whatever foothold it nets them to improve the store
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
No, I said it would take Epic years to build a feature set that not only catches up to Steam, but surpasses it

Steam will and has always been improving, so Epic would have to beat them at their own game, in less time

Steam, as the market leader with the best client, would be able to easily see what a weaker competitor is doing and act to counter them

One of your suggestions was give away free games when you buy a new game, Valve could implement that in seconds and then that advantage for Epic is nullified

I'm still not arguing (nor have I ever argued) buying exclusives is good for the consumer, but in the short term it will get people to engage with the Epic store

I hope Epic spend too much on exclusives and ultimately decide it's not a viable long term strategy, or I hope they only do this for a short period of time before opting to use whatever foothold it nets them to improve the store

They could but would they be interested in pursuing that ?
Because I could take the same logic: If Epic's only way is to moneyhat exclusives... then it could take seconds for Valve to act in an anti-consumer way:
- Moneyhat exclusives too to never release on EGS.
- Delist titles that gets listed then removed for exclusivity (like Metro) forever.

And that would take seconds too. That's why it's not an excuse to release a subpar competitor.

It'd take years ? They had years. It takes money ? They have the money.
They just dont want. And a competitor that blatantly says the customer is toxic and money should be pushed only toward devs (and influencers) is a toxic competitor that deserves nothing but failure.
 

Morbius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
896
I personally dont mind 6 million different launchers but at the same time i dont think certain games should be locked to one or the other.
 

oni-link

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,833
UK
They could but would they be interested in pursuing that ?
Because I could take the same logic: If Epic's only way is to moneyhat exclusives... then it could take seconds for Valve to act in an anti-consumer way:
- Moneyhat exclusives too to never release on EGS.
- Delist titles that gets listed then removed for exclusivity (like Metro) forever.

And that would take seconds too. That's why it's not an excuse to release a subpar competitor.

It'd take years ? They had years. It takes money ? They have the money.
They just dont want. And a competitor that blatantly says the customer is toxic and money should be pushed only toward devs (and influencers) is a toxic competitor that deserves nothing but failure.
You're right, they just don't want to

But investors want returns now, not later, and they have obviously decided they want the violate, aggressive and risky strategy that will net short term gains, over the long and slow one that might maybe one day chip away at Steams market share

I can understand why they have opted for that strategy, if it works, and it works well, then it's a huge boost for them. However it may not work long term, and Steam, as you say, can react by doing the same things, but those things also go against what they have done for the last 15 years
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,468
No, I said it would take Epic years to build a feature set that not only catches up to Steam, but surpasses it
Ok, let's say that this is true. They couldn't come up with a single unique selling point? Just one small feature that would be better than Steam? What's the excuse for offering absolutely nothing to the customer?
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,661
No, I said it would take Epic years to build a feature set that not only catches up to Steam, but surpasses it

Steam will and has always been improving, so Epic would have to beat them at their own game, in less time
is that too much to expect from a multi-billion $ company? With any serious production software - not to mention games - we expect a few years of development and polish before consumers get access to the software. But I guess crappy apps, continuous deployment software and all that shit has lowered peoples expectations so much that most don't realize anymore how awfully buggy, bloated and feature-thin apps are these days.

Several years of development to create something that actually innovates and is better than the competitor rather than moneyhatting into walled gardens seems like a much better model for both consumers and the marketplace.
 

oni-link

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,833
UK
Ok, let's say that this is true. They couldn't come up with a single unique selling point? Just one small feature that would better than Steam? What's the excuse for offering absolutely nothing to the customer?
They offer exclusive games and better developer cut

If they had a worse service and no selling point, they wouldn't sell any games at all

Again, I still don't think this is a good deal for consumers, and I still hope they ultimately fail

Several years of development to create something that is actually innovative and better than the competitor rather than moneyhatting into walled gardens seems like a much better model for both consumers and the marketplace.
I 100% agree, but that doesn't mean I can't see why Epic have gone with this strategy

Maybe this move will overall be worse for consumers, and worse for the marketplace, but if it's better for Epic, that's generally what Epic care about

Corporations do shitty things that only benefit them all the time
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2017
3,971
My point is that you don't convince people with good intentions and shift the market. You force people first, and whether the thing lasts depends on whether there are good intentions driving it in future.
Ducky, people not wanting to use the epic client because they don't want more launchers, or because it's a crappy launcher or whatever is one thing, but the existence of [a game] being exclusive to the client is not what this controversy is about. It's far more specific. Days ago (and like a fortnight before the game launches) it was available at numerous store fronts for better prices. It was available on a client people wanted to use in the year 2019. It was quite likely going to be available on multiple PC clients (i.e. Windows Store garbage) if not immediately then not long after launch. Now it's exclusive to Epic's store. Epic's games being epic store exclusive is not this controversy, it's that it's a third party game that was until moments ago non-exclusive and that it was done because Epic gave them a (presumably substantial) payday to do it.

If Valve started paying developers to explicitly remove games off other people's clients and store fronts they'd also be getting blasted and you know they would. A lot of people don't like this stuff, it's not rocket science. Even if the Epic Store was a fantastic launcher (it's not) with good feature sets (it's not), people would still be unhappy about it, and it's not a problem that they want to let the companies know they don't like it and it's definitely not a problem that some people want to pass on the game because of it.
 

Sandersson

Member
Feb 5, 2018
1,685
Why does what need to exist? The Epic games store?

I mean, companies like to make money. Is this new information to you?

Even companies that make lots of money already generally like trying to make even more money
Aaah yes, I never knew I havent been doing charity my whole life. Thanks dude, you opened my eyes. Now that we have come to the revelation that companies, indeed, are supposed to make money for their owners, maybe we can return to the topic "Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market."

Worse launcher, worse storefront and actively removing competition by buying exclusive rights to 3rd party IPs. Wohoo, what are people not excited for?!
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,393
This is what I'm thinking really. In the long term, it should open up Valves eyes, they've had complete domination for too long.
That “domination” is simply the market deciding what’s best for them.

Maybe Epic should be the one opening their eyes as to what consumers want, rather than throwing money at media corporations to steal games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,224
new jersey
They could but would they be interested in pursuing that ?
Because I could take the same logic: If Epic's only way is to moneyhat exclusives... then it could take seconds for Valve to act in an anti-consumer way:
- Moneyhat exclusives too to never release on EGS.
- Delist titles that gets listed then removed for exclusivity (like Metro) forever.

And that would take seconds too. That's why it's not an excuse to release a subpar competitor.

It'd take years ? They had years. It takes money ? They have the money.
They just dont want. And a competitor that blatantly says the customer is toxic and money should be pushed only toward devs (and influencers) is a toxic competitor that deserves nothing but failure
.
I like this a lot. It emphasizes my issue with EGS. It feels anti-consumer. No reviews. No communities. Costs are lower for the developer, but not the consumer.
 

kinjx11

Banned
Jan 24, 2019
299
User Warned: Body shaming.
competiton is always good , let them duke it out


maybe Gaben will get off his fat ass and release all the games with number 3 in them
 
Nov 8, 2017
3,971
Hmmm.. Im gonna go out on a limb and guess they wont be offering free key generation like Steam. Just a hunch I have.
They might, I wouldn't put it past them if they feel enough pressure, but offering Steam-like refunds, free dev key generation etc will cut into Epic's already substantially lower per-unit revenue. The "fat" that Steam gets as part of the 30% sold through it's store essentially subsidies the other factors (and then still leaves them enough for a healthy profit on top). Something like 1/3 of the people who own a given major game on steam (which Steam still provides servers and services for) did not pay Steam a single cent. For indies that's more like 1/4 or 1/5 but that's still a very relevant consideration.

Considering the monetary outlays Epic will be doing for "convincing" developers to come aboard with exclusive content, the game giveaways they'll be doing to convince gamers to sign up for the store and so on, it's obvious that this is intended to be operating at a major loss for the foreseeable future. Feature parity with Steam is eventually going to become much more important for them because they can't operate at a loss forever - they're in this to eventually make money.
 

oni-link

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,833
UK
Aaah yes, I never knew I havent been doing charity my whole life. Thanks dude, you opened my eyes. Now that we have come to the revelation that companies, indeed, are supposed to make money for their owners, maybe we can return to the topic "Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market."

Worse launcher, worse storefront and actively removing competition by buying exclusive rights to 3rd party IPs. Wohoo, what are people not excited for?!
Your specific question was: "So.. why does it need to exist? Just because fuck Steam?"

So I answered it. No, company X does not exist purely to "fuck" company Y

Company X exists to make money for company X

No idea how I was supposed to answer such a basic question in any other way

If you wanted a better answer you should have asked a better question

It also looks like very few people are excited at the prospect of PC store exclusives being a thing
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,532
Sure, because it's impossible for them to ever implement "Epic keys"
Oh, they're coming - Metro Exodus retail has EGS keys. But what does that prove? Will Ashen be sold on other digital stores? Maybe, maybe not. But as of right now EGS does not allow other digital stores to sell the games they've bought exclusive rights to. And arguing that things may change in the future is literally just making excuses for the company.
 

Adamska

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,852
Yeah, I don't see how what Epic is doing can be considered "stealing games", that's just people's entitlement talking.

They are investing on developers through money and by helping them gain visibility through their platform which rides on the popularity of one of the biggest games of the past few years, and that sounds great for developers and bad for people who refuse to use the Epic launcher. Sure, it could have more features than it does now, but then again one has to ask oneself what's more important: a game (which is what you buy in these storefronts in the first place) or ancillary features. Many will say they make a point to have as many ancillary features as possible, while many others will say they only require core features. In the end, the market will determine whether or not these features will help Steam remain relevant in face of growing competition.
 

Deleted member 1759

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,582
Europe
Because it's only good for the handpicked, already high profile developers they are moneyhatting and not the panacea it's been sold as for the rest of the thousands of independent developers who are fighting in a super competitive industry and also yearning free from the shackles of Steam and the supposed mountains of shit software it "promotes". It goes ignored because it has been argued plenty of times before and like most arguments in recent PC threads it falls on deaf ears.

Independent studios beefs with Valve have been lengthy and for a variety of reasons. First it was that the gates were locked and a lot of studios couldn't get in and their curation process wasn't transparent. Between the humble bundles and prominent sales there was a gold rush for what we would now consider lower or middle of the road quality games which would end up on everyone's library simply because building up a collection of varied, affordable, community driven releases was desirable. Sales were platform wide events that garnered ridiculous amounts of attention and Valve's experimenting with different models (Free to play, hats, sales achievements, rewards (including whole games) for participating and logging in daily, the marketplace, etc. etc. etc.).

Then as more and more games made it into the system competition got more fierce and sales and cheap bundle keys got abused, indies starting lamenting the "devaluation" of independent games (something they happily contributed to as long as it was insanely profitable) and asked for more curation tools. Things like the Greenlight system happened, and other multiple competing stores and models started to pop up outside of Valve. Some failed, some are still around, greenlight got abused by developers and customers alike and imperfect a system as it as, it also became a point of contention for them.

Then the doors were truly opened to allow all of those frustrated independent developers out there who were still struggling to get in, in an attempt to make the field more fair. But the downside of course is that there is even more competition and more quality games. But it's not the only thing that has happened either. In the time all of this came to be, tools and engines have made it easier for a lot of people to make quality stuff. Plenty of storied developers long in the tooth at large publishing houses left their ranks to do smaller stuff. Kickstarter and indiegogo happened. Twitch and influencers happened, where a pewdiepide figure can play a game like flappy bird and propel it to be played by millions on his popularity alone. Major developments in the industry and market make it so that sure fire hits like Audiosurf and Beat Hazard and Winterbottom and whatever Runner wouldn't stand out anymore. We have GOTY quality stuff constantly standing out from the independent market every month, and that competition resulted in fewer dollars from consumers to go around. Then the sights moved to Steam's cut, an industry standard cut that suddenly became unfair because the platform continues to grow while these guaranteed successes dried up or became subject to many other factors.

Discoverability has become an issue of a thriving industry not just for Valve, but Steam gets a lot of the stick for it instead of all the above causes for the flooding the PC and independent space has seen. Some games have suffered, yes, but if you mean to tell me that Epic's approach is "good for the industry and for consumers" because it provides economic stability to an insignificant % of already well established independent developers I have a very long bridge to sell you. If you are one of the lucky ones to get on the ground floor of their platform launch and aggressive PR moves, good for you. I don't see how that improves the industry when it's a crapshoot the developers most affected will ever benefit from it. Epic's plan is to eventually open its store for submissions and release around 150 to 200 games A MONTH. Do you think they are going to guarantee the financial well-being of all those games like they are doing for a handful of high profiles now? Do you think they will not run into the same discoverability issues? And even worse, all their plans for influencers to dictate and directly benefit from being the high profile players of the curation process will bring about a whole host of other nasty issues when it comes to healthy competition.

The market is competitive and a lot of studios won't make it even though they totally feel they are entitled to a piece of the pie. Like people love reminding us when stanning for Epic's brand of "shark" competition, this is a business. Businesses fail. No one has a guaranteed market. Good games are competing against other increasingly great offerings more and more. This perfect, smartly curated launcher where the cut is in the single digits, submission is fast and hassle free, the developer is shielded from every negative opinion, where every passionate and hardworking independent developer big and small who considers themselves worthy of the PC market's attention, who will benefit from the same visibility that AAA stuff does, that will be able find a wide audience at full price forever without involving 3rd party storefronts, is a dream that will never exist. Steam is far from perfect, but to believe moneyhatting exclusives and taking purchasing options away from consumers is good for everyone and will lead to more, better games, is disingenuous at best.
The hyper-toxic "pro-consumer" user base strikes again!
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
Yeah, I don't see how what Epic is doing can be considered "stealing games", that's just people's entitlement talking.

They are investing on developers through money and by helping them gain visibility through their platform which rides on the popularity of one of the biggest games of the past few years, and that sounds great for developers and bad for people who refuse to use the Epic launcher. Sure, it could have more features than it does now, but then again one has to ask oneself what's more important: a game (which is what you buy in these storefronts in the first place) or ancillary features. Many will say they make a point to have as many ancillary features as possible, while many others will say they only require core features. In the end, the market will determine whether or not these features will help Steam remain relevant in face of growing competition.


Clearly, The Division 2 was struggling with visibility and Ubisoft is in need of money. Hence why Epic paid 3 months before the game release.
Heck, Metro Exodus was also struggling with visibility. It's a good thing Epic saved the project 2 weeks before release.

Read the OP. Save yourself embarassement.
 

Adamska

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,852
Yeah, no one said anything about the games being struggling with visibility in the first place. If this added visibility is given to games that are already plenty visible that only further helps the games' perspective sales and is good for everyone involved (except the people who only uses their own preferred launcher for whatever reason).
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
Yeah, no one said anything about the games being struggling with visibility in the first place. If this added visibility is given to games that are already plenty visible that only further helps the games' perspective sales and is good for everyone involved (except the people who only uses their own preferred launcher for whatever reason).

Ffs. Read. The. OP.
"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). "

The game price has gone up to 50% HIGHER because of that move in Europe. Western Europe. France/UK/Deutschland.
It's LITERALLY the first post.

No one said anything about visibility ?
"by helping them gain visibility "
 

Ge0force

Self-requested ban.
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
5,265
Belgium
Yeah, no one said anything about the games being struggling with visibility in the first place. If this added visibility is given to games that are already plenty visible that only further helps the games' perspective sales and is good for everyone involved (except the people who only uses their own preferred launcher for whatever reason).
You know what would have helped adding visibility without pissing off potential customers? Offering the game at every storefront available.

But we both know that this exclusivity deal has nothing to do with visibility. It's just another moneyhat. And sales WILL suffer because of that.
 
Nov 4, 2017
1,924
I think its a bit hypocritical that Epic, i.e. the Tim "WINDUHS IS STEALIN' MUH VIDYA" Sweeney company, is buying exclusivity for games already sold on other platforms. I imagine (and hope) these tactics are just a temporary measure to boost user uptake for the nascent platform.

However, I will gladly install and try any storefront that gives me a native Linux client and will sell me native Linux games. Bonus points for putting as much effort as Valve has with Proton to get Windows games working on Linux. Until then...

 

Adamska

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,852
You know what would have helped adding visibility without pissing off potential customers? Offering the game at every storefront available.

But we both know that this exclusivity deal has nothing to do with visibility. It's just another moneyhat. And sales WILL suffer because of that.
Will they really? I mean, you said it yourself, some of these games barely needed the addeed visibility in the first place. If anything, this will also help the Epic store itself gain visibility and thus helping it get lesser known games, such as Ashen, to bigger sales (with a bigger cut, no less).
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309
Will they really? I mean, you said it yourself, some of these games barely needed the addeed visibility in the first place. If anything, this will also help the Epic store itself gain visibility and thus helping it get lesser known games, such as Ashen, to bigger sales (with a bigger cut, no less).

Yeah, Ashen that has been featured multiple times, on stage, at E3, published by Annapurna was lacking visibility.
Cut it out, the only actor gaining visibility here is the Epic Store. Ashen or Metro Exodus being exclusive on the Epic Store only brings attention to the store, not these games. Yeah, it's simple math: Being shown to 300M people is more than being shown to 30M people. Would these games be less visible on the Epic Store if they were everywhere else ? No.

If anything, I think these games are actually seeing lower sales considering the uproar we're seeing.
 

Bede-x

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,591
Ok, let's say that this is true. They couldn't come up with a single unique selling point? Just one small feature that would be better than Steam? What's the excuse for offering absolutely nothing to the customer?
We're getting two games free every month. That's about the only good thing to come out of this from a consumer perspective.
 

useyourloaf

Member
Oct 31, 2017
75
The "fat" that Steam gets as part of the 30% sold through it's store essentially subsidies the other factors (and then still leaves them enough for a healthy profit on top).
If a dev can sell though 50% of their keys themselves, Valves cut is already down to 15%.
If a dev can't do that, then maybe Valve is offering a valuable service that's worth paying for.
 
OP
OP
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,309

ramoisdead

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,493
Because it's only good for the handpicked, already high profile developers they are moneyhatting and not the panacea it's been sold as for the rest of the thousands of independent developers who are fighting in a super competitive industry and also yearning free from the shackles of Steam and the supposed mountains of shit software it "promotes". It goes ignored because it has been argued plenty of times before and like most arguments in recent PC threads it falls on deaf ears.

Independent studios beefs with Valve have been lengthy and for a variety of reasons. First it was that the gates were locked and a lot of studios couldn't get in and their curation process wasn't transparent. Between the humble bundles and prominent sales there was a gold rush for what we would now consider lower or middle of the road quality games which would end up on everyone's library simply because building up a collection of varied, affordable, community driven releases was desirable. Sales were platform wide events that garnered ridiculous amounts of attention and Valve's experimenting with different models (Free to play, hats, sales achievements, rewards (including whole games) for participating and logging in daily, the marketplace, etc. etc. etc.).

Then as more and more games made it into the system competition got more fierce and sales and cheap bundle keys got abused, indies starting lamenting the "devaluation" of independent games (something they happily contributed to as long as it was insanely profitable) and asked for more curation tools. Things like the Greenlight system happened, and other multiple competing stores and models started to pop up outside of Valve. Some failed, some are still around, greenlight got abused by developers and customers alike and imperfect a system as it as, it also became a point of contention for them.

Then the doors were truly opened to allow all of those frustrated independent developers out there who were still struggling to get in, in an attempt to make the field more fair. But the downside of course is that there is even more competition and more quality games. But it's not the only thing that has happened either. In the time all of this came to be, tools and engines have made it easier for a lot of people to make quality stuff. Plenty of storied developers long in the tooth at large publishing houses left their ranks to do smaller stuff. Kickstarter and indiegogo happened. Twitch and influencers happened, where a pewdiepide figure can play a game like flappy bird and propel it to be played by millions on his popularity alone. Major developments in the industry and market make it so that sure fire hits like Audiosurf and Beat Hazard and Winterbottom and whatever Runner wouldn't stand out anymore. We have GOTY quality stuff constantly standing out from the independent market every month, and that competition resulted in fewer dollars from consumers to go around. Then the sights moved to Steam's cut, an industry standard cut that suddenly became unfair because the platform continues to grow while these guaranteed successes dried up or became subject to many other factors.

Discoverability has become an issue of a thriving industry not just for Valve, but Steam gets a lot of the stick for it instead of all the above causes for the flooding the PC and independent space has seen. Some games have suffered, yes, but if you mean to tell me that Epic's approach is "good for the industry and for consumers" because it provides economic stability to an insignificant % of already well established independent developers I have a very long bridge to sell you. If you are one of the lucky ones to get on the ground floor of their platform launch and aggressive PR moves, good for you. I don't see how that improves the industry when it's a crapshoot the developers most affected will ever benefit from it. Epic's plan is to eventually open its store for submissions and release around 150 to 200 games A MONTH. Do you think they are going to guarantee the financial well-being of all those games like they are doing for a handful of high profiles now? Do you think they will not run into the same discoverability issues? And even worse, all their plans for influencers to dictate and directly benefit from being the high profile players of the curation process will bring about a whole host of other nasty issues when it comes to healthy competition.

The market is competitive and a lot of studios won't make it even though they totally feel they are entitled to a piece of the pie. Like people love reminding us when stanning for Epic's brand of "shark" competition, this is a business. Businesses fail. No one has a guaranteed market. Good games are competing against other increasingly great offerings more and more. This perfect, smartly curated launcher where the cut is in the single digits, submission is fast and hassle free, the developer is shielded from every negative opinion, where every passionate and hardworking independent developer big and small who considers themselves worthy of the PC market's attention, who will benefit from the same visibility that AAA stuff does, that will be able find a wide audience at full price forever without involving 3rd party storefronts, is a dream that will never exist. Steam is far from perfect, but to believe moneyhatting exclusives and taking purchasing options away from consumers is good for everyone and will lead to more, better games, is disingenuous at best.
Brilliantly said.