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

[MrHedin]

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?

Click to shrink...

Depends. How much is Google selling their box for, what features & specs the console has, and what 3rd party games are going to be available? If they can compete or beat existing consoles in price and features and have a sufficient library available I don't see why it wouldn't have a shot. When you are competing on price and features rather than exclusivity the consumer will benefit more.

 

[Tavernade]

My biggest problem with how Epic have been handling things is that a lot of their games seem to have started as games that were intended for Steam, or even available for preorder there, before being bought out for Epic. There's a difference between, say, Nintendo only releasing Mario on Switch and Nintendo buying the rights to Resident Evil 2's remake and making it a Switch exclusive after it's already been available for preorder on other platforms.

 

[zedox]

I brought up Tidal earlier and it's one of the most infamous failures in music. Definitely stupid. Like they had to fidge the number to make them look better kind of stupid.

The rest of your examples aren't the same. A lot of exclusive brands are made in house and not really "moneyhatted". And there's a big difference between a golf club or a ring which serve the same kind of purpose than a game. They're not actively taking away content from the consumer.

Click to shrink...

So you want to say "reasons" for the others and Tidal is still in business. LOL.

 

[Tovarisc]

Most of these games are old as shit though. Well supported yes but old news.

Click to shrink...

I'm still waiting for you to make your argument or point. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Arsene no Kiseki]

Electronic Arts, Origin - Battlefield V, The Sims

Valve, Steam - Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Artifact

PlayStation, Naughty Dog - The Last of Us, Uncharted

Hamilton - Only performed at select theaters

Click to shrink...

All of those are first party.

 

[Baji Boxer]

From Epic's perspective: That's good.
But this thread isn't about "Big company backed by Tencent's billons" but "Customers and the market".



It's not a monopoly indeed. But these are monopolistic tactics.

Click to shrink...

It's pretty normal retailer behaviour.

 

[ASaiyan]

Moneyhatting ≠ "competition"
Moneyhatting ≠ "good for the industry"
Moneyhatting ≠ "shaking-up Valve"

 

[Arkain]

Seems like some are still at Stage 2: Anger.

Click to shrink...

So do you think what Epic is doing here is actually a good thing in the long run? I'm not an expert, so I'm a bit confused by this entire Steam vs Epic debacle. Some expert input would be appreciated.

From what I can tell, what Epic is doing here, is making it impossible for all the other storefronts to compete, plus they're actually increasing the price from what you could get from a key reseller. Plus, their client is missing a lot of features. As a consumer, I currently see no reason to actually use their store.

 

[Thorrgal]

Good for developers, good for everyone

 

[FantaSoda]

I have no problem with exclusives showing up on storefronts. I think a lot of the hand-wringing around these storefronts is fanboyism at it's pinnacle. However, the fact that they took it down for sale everywhere else a few weeks before the game is supposed to release really does suck.

 

[Deleted member 6730]

So you want to say "reasons" for the others and Tidal is still in business. LOL.

Click to shrink...

Tidal is still in business mostly because of Jay-Z but they're still dwarfed by Spotify. I think Tidal might have a couple million subscribers at best while Spotify has 87 million as of their recent earnings report.

Also what TIdal does still isn't good and even fucking Kanye West realized he wasn't getting listeners by staying exclusively with Tidal. Bad example. Next.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Other stores already have exclusive features, GOG with no DRM for example, and Stream still obliterates them. Even if GOG adds all the features Steam has, and more, and keeps the no DRM, most people playing on PC are embeded in Steam, and you probably won't get that many people moving over. I just fail to see how this tactic will eat into Steams market share. Of course GOG are sustainable, but if they really wanted to challenge Steam and get more of the market I can't see how a features arms race will make much of a dent

The same goes for Epic, which is probably why they're being so aggressive with exclusives (which again, I agree sucks for the consumer)



Having a few percent of the market compared to Steam being 75% of the market isn't really competing though. I mean, Epic could probably do that, but if they want more than a few percent of the market I don't think a features arms race will make as much of a dent as being able to offer a ton of exclusives

Click to shrink...

In the end if they don't have something compelling they lose anyway. This is just forcing fans of games to buy them from their stores. They have a lot of capital and should look at how the biggest competitors manage to differentiate themselves and then focus on that. Companies have been doing well with a lot less money.

And there are huge competitors. Amazon also has sold a large mount of PC games. I also consider the Switch store a competitor and that one is definitely competing in a very different way.

 

[Stardestroyer]

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.

Click to shrink...

And who is forcing those companies to go in to these SUPPOSEDLY horrible deals? EPIC cant force them to, so they must be good enough incentive for those companies to accept a payment from epic.

I don't know and you damn sure don't know, so why not let the companies decide what is right for them? Or do you think your misplaced concern supersede the company accepting those deals?

 

[Bleu]

EPIC is attempting to force its store the microsoft way, moneyhatting exclusives instead of, you know, slowly building a real attractive store.
They will fail the same way.
A few editors will take the money for a while, then once it is clear that the extra money or lower royalties does not even begin to balance the lost sales by not being on other stores (on top of killing your IP because a game no one plays is a game no one waits for a sequel of) , they will stop.

 

[Deleted member 15395]

I say with some professional certainty that they've made a profit on the game solely through this deal.

Click to shrink...

Making an educated guess, would you say the might stand to make more by releasing on other stores? Perhaps they weren't as confident on the game and the upfront cash from Epic mitigated a large part of the risk.

"that it's immediately bad for the market".
Eh, it literally is immediate:
There was competition. There's no more competition.
The game price was between 45 to 60 bucks. It's now 50 to 60 bucks.

Click to shrink...

I agree on the price, but was there any real competition happening? Or just considerably smaller storefronts that eke out a very small portion of the massive cake that steam gets to eat?

Epic, in my opinion, are going straight after Steam. They're not interested in being GoG or Humble Store, they wan't to go after the big guy and like I said before they're not going to do that by having the same "features". It's just not gonna cut it.

 

[Sei]

People are bringing all kinds of weird analogies into this, completely missing the point.

When talking about third party games on the PC platform, the facts are.

You can buy Steamworks platform game keys on many different online market places, Amazon, DLGamer, GameBillet, Fanatical, Humble, and many more.

You can buy non-Steamworks games on many different clients, GoodOldGames, Twitch(Amazon), Discord, Microsoft Store, Itch io, ect.

What Epic is doing, you can only buy an exclusive third party game on the Epic Store using the Epic Client, at the only price set by them.

If you support this, this is anti consumer.

 

[Omegasquash]

I don't see this as monopoly/ization, but I think it's a poor way to compete. They're paying for other platforms to not have certain content, not providing or presenting a better value for it.

Exclusivity isn't competing, and all it makes me do is question their long term strategy, and how it impacts/will impact their customer base. Stuff like this doesn't instill trust. Not that Steam or any business is a beacon of trust, but Epic comes off as throwing money around to get money.

I can't sit here and predict the future, but whenever a company goes for blood like this, it feels like fighting dirty. Something about that doesn't sit right with me. That, and Fortnite basically being a culture of shame to buy, just means I'm going to look elsewhere.

 

[The Cowpuncher]

Easy for me to say now, but Valve really should have pulled back on their cut a while ago. Set the stage for all this.

 

[Smokey]

Competition was needed. Epic came up with terms favorable to devs and is offering incentives for them to hop on. Instead of bitching at Epic, how about you guys focus your energy on getting Steam to adapt and adjust its policies to be move favorable to those who make games? Or is it not THAT serious?

 

[oni-link]

In the end if they don't have something compelling they lose anyway. This is just forcing fans of games to buy them from their stores. They have a lot of capital and should look at how the biggest competitors manage to differentiate themselves and then focus on that. Companies have been doing well with a lot less money.

And there are huge competitors. Amazon also has sold a large mount of PC games. I also consider the Switch store a competitor and that one is definitely competing in a very different way.

Click to shrink...

I agree that Epic are making things worse for PC consumers, but from their point of view I can't think of another tactic that will get them results quickly

Unless all their exclusives flop, I expect them to keep this up for a good few years

 

[Uzuki]

Mmmm, I love the smell of the free market at work in the morning. Can't start my day without a cuppa healthy competition to keep monopolies from forming, the market from stagnating and defaulting to one platform, and allowing creators to take a bigger cut from their work. Good ol' capitalism working at it's finest. Surely we're not going to force devs looking to make the most amount of money to choose where they release their games, are we?

 

[ChoklitCow]

Have any devs or people in the industry chimed in on this? I mean, if its actively hurting the market I'm sure there are some receipts?

 

[Stardestroyer]

Epic don't want to compete. They want to throw their weight around such that they don't have to compete. They haven't yet come up with a compelling reason for customers to choose their store, so are simply paying their way to removing alternatives. I can't see any arguement for how removing consumer choice benefits consumers.

Click to shrink...

They want to compete and they are competing it. What they are doing is normal behavior, you just don't like normal business tactics because for some reason, you seem to think video games are removed from the normal business cycles that exist in other companies.

As someone wiser has said: You are in Stage 2: Anger.

Depends. How much is Google selling their box for, what features & specs the console has, and what 3rd party games are going to be available? If they can compete or beat existing consoles in price and features and have a sufficient library available I don't see why it wouldn't have a shot. When you are competing on price and features rather than exclusivity the consumer will benefit more.

Click to shrink...

How would they suddenly get a library full of games? When you get into a new industry it is usually cheaper to aquire another company that has the tools you need. IN this case, moneyhatting companies is cheaper and faster than buying and waiting for them to develop games for your console.

Exclusives exist for a reason, they exist to differentiate your product from your competitors in the gaming market. Moneyhatting is valid tactics while you slowly acquire through acquisitions or through creation studios to make your own games.

BTW I am assuming everything is equal with the current consoles in my scenario. Why would a lot of people buy a new console just to play third party games when those same games come to the other console but those old consoles have exclusive and backward compatibility?

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

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.

Click to shrink...

Valve doesn't set sales for other games. If a sale sucks, it's on the developer.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

What stage is this MatPiscatella ?

Click to shrink...

Seems like some are still at Stage 2: Anger.

Click to shrink...

Let's not make metacommentary or taunt other members regarding emotional states. Thank you.

 

[GhostTrick]

Making an educated guess, would you say the might stand to make more by releasing on other stores? Perhaps they weren't as confident on the game and the upfront cash from Epic mitigated a large part of the risk.



I agree on the price, but was there any real competition happening? Or just considerably smaller storefronts that eke out a very small portion of the massive cake that steam gets to eat?

Epic, in my opinion, are going straight after Steam. They're not interested in being GoG or Humble Store, they wan't to go after the big guy and like I said before they're not going to do that by having the same "features". It's just not gonna cut it.

Click to shrink...

Competition isn't about your marketshare. It's about what do you offer.
So yes, they are competing. Heck, I'm actually buying MORE toward these competitors than on Steam.

 

[Shairi]

I disagree with the OP. I understand the frustration because a lot of people here are heavily invested in Steam and it is annoying and inconvenient when a game skips the preferred platform because of money hatting.

But I think many people mistake what competition actually means, because competition does not mean that everything has to be convenient to you. It means that the overall welfare is higher in a competitive environment than it would be with a monopoly.

If the Epic Store establishes itself, people can assume that Steam will also reduce its cut. This will lead to more Indies being able to survive, big developers being able to offer their games at a lower price, and probably Valve investing significantly more in its own game development.
The increase in overall welfare will outweigh the negative aspects of the competition. It's good for consumers and it's good for the publishers/devs. The only loser here is Steam, because they're losing their monopoly.

 

[Braag]

Epic don't want to compete. They want to throw their weight around such that they don't have to compete. They haven't yet come up with a compelling reason for customers to choose their store, so are simply paying their way to removing alternatives. I can't see any arguement for how removing consumer choice benefits consumers.

Click to shrink...

Now now, paying for a third party game to be locked down on your platform and your platform only is GREAT for consumers and we should all endorse it!
That way you don't even need to improve your store to be competitive with the other ones, you can just strong arm everyone into using it cause you have all the games.

 

[GhostTrick]

Seems like some are still at Stage 2: Anger.

Click to shrink...

Sorry if I dislike paying more for less. :"")

 

[RPGam3r]

This tactic is used in other areas of entertainment not sure why gaming on PC should be some special sacred thing.

 

[Deleted member 11214]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...m-but-theyre-going-about-it-in-the-worst-way/

 

[GhostTrick]

I disagree with the OP. I understand the frustration because a lot of people here are heavily invested in Steam and it is annoying and inconvenient when a game skips the preferred platform because of money hatting.

But I think many people mistake what competition actually means, because competition does not mean that everything has to be convenient to you. It means that the overall welfare is higher in a competitive environment than it would be with a monopoly.

If the Epic Store establishes itself, people can assume that Steam will also reduce its cut. This will lead to more Indies being able to survive, big developers being able to offer their games at a lower price, and probably Valve investing significantly more in its own game development.
The increase in overall welfare will outweigh the negative aspects of the competition. It's good for consumers and it's good for the publishers/devs. The only loser here is Steam, because they're losing their monopoly.

Click to shrink...

You disagree yet it almost feels like you didn't read the OP.
You would see it's not about Steam otherwise.

 

[zedox]

Tidal is still in business mostly because of Jay-Z but they're still dwarfed by Spotify..

Click to shrink...

Switch out Tital with Epic, Jay-Z with Fortnite and Spotify with Steam.

Sorry but don't just throw shit out just because it doesn't fit your narrative. This happens in business all the time (and no, not all apparell are inhouse, and jared having exclusive jewerly is the same thing). But we can stop talking as it is evident that you just want to see what you want to even when given examples.

 

[Inugami]

lmao
pulling a game from every single store is being sold is not anti-competition now
rofl

Click to shrink...

Paying to remove competition isn't anti-competition.
It's the very first time I use this gif:

Click to shrink...

When paying to remove competition isn't anti-competitive...

Click to shrink...

Yes, getting a single game exclusive is not being anti competitive. Words have meanings. You can't overrule them because your feelings tell you otherwise.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Most of these games are old as shit though. Well supported yes but old news.

Click to shrink...

You are talking about a treasure trove of IPs that are not only still well-supported but also among the most actively played games on Steam, what do you want from them? They are utilizing their IPs. Basically everything but Half Life and even that I'd expect to change this year.

 

[Akalance]

Isn't this basically relitigating whether exclusives are healthy for gaming as a whole?

 

[noyram23]

Let's not make metacommentary or taunt other members regarding emotional states. Thank you.

Click to shrink...

My bad

 

[Arulan]

This tactic is used in other areas of entertainment not sure why gaming on PC should be some special sacred thing.

Click to shrink...

Why do you find it acceptable there? Could it be perhaps that these other places you speak of are closed-platforms designed to limit your ability to fight against it?

 

[StereoVSN]

I agree that Epic are making things worse for PC consumers, but from their point of view I can't think of another tactic that will get them results quickly

Unless all their exclusives flop, I expect them to keep this up for a good few years

Click to shrink...

How did that work out with Rise of the Tomb Raider?

I can only hope that this bites in the ass the publishers who went for Epic moneyhat. We shall see. So far I haven't seen anything from Epic store that I couldn't deal without a year later or maybe even never.

The whole thing is shady as shit. Epic with it's Fortnite cash and backed by even bigger Tencent is implementing anti-consumer shit and people here are happy for it? That's just crazy.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Isn't this basically relitigating whether exclusives are healthy for gaming as a whole?

Click to shrink...

On the same platform? Yeah. Per console/PC? Nah

 

[Thorrgal]

And who is forcing those companies to go in to these SUPPOSEDLY horrible deals? EPIC cant force them to, so they must be good enough incentive for those companies to accept a payment from epic.

I don't know and you damn sure don't know, so why not let the companies decide what is right for them? Or do you think your misplaced concern supersede the company accepting those deals?

Click to shrink...

Exactly this

 

[Detail]

Steam isn't perfect but I don't like the way Epic are going about this, feels very anti-consumer.

 

[Deleted member 6730]

Switch out Tital with Epic, Jay-Z with Fortnite and Spotify with Steam.

Sorry but don't just throw shit out just because it doesn't fit your narrative. This happens in business all the time (and no, not all apparell are inhouse, and jared having exclusive jewerly is the same thing). But we can stop talking as it is evident that you just want to see what you want to even when given examples.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. That's literally my point. Your top example of a company moneyhatting is a music service no one uses.

 

[Ganado]

Yeah, like Steam taking a 30% cut from devs with no explanation as to where it goes.

Click to shrink...

Thats like saying "Where is the explanation to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendos 30% + online fee?".

 

[Inugami]

Isn't this basically relitigating whether exclusives are healthy for gaming as a whole?

Click to shrink...

This is what it is, yes. The only difference is for some reason people think Steam is the same as Microsoft and Sony in that they own PC gaming which is beyond silly.

 

[Shairi]

You disagree yet it almost feels like you didn't read the OP.
You would see it's not about Steam otherwise.

Click to shrink...

I did. And I understand that the game has also been removed from other shops. But my point stands. A major competitor for Steam is conducive for a healthy market.

 

[oni-link]

How did that work out with Rise of the Tomb Raider?

I can only hope that this bites in the ass the publishers who went for Epic moneyhat. We shall see. So far I haven't seen anything from Epic store that I couldn't deal without a year later or maybe even never.

The whole thing is shady as shit. Epic with it's Fortnite cash and backed by even bigger Tencent is implementing anti-consumer shit and people here are happy for it? That's just crazy.

Click to shrink...

Well it might backfire, we'll have to wait and see

Most people don't seem happy with it, but it's also not shady. It's business.

Hopefully if this keeps happening and Epic start doing well it will force Steam into action and get them to work on areas they could improve on

 

[MattEnth]

All of those are first party.

Click to shrink...

Why does that matter?

Are you saying that if Epic purchased Deep Silver, it would be "ok"?

Because the impact to consumers is the same, regardless if it's first party or third party.

Isn't this basically relitigating whether exclusives are healthy for gaming as a whole?

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

The same arguments would say that EA is bad for making Battlefield V exclusive to Origin, that Valve is bad for making CS:GO exclusive to Steam, that Nintendo is bad for making BotW exclusive to Switch, and Sony is bad for making Uncharted exclusive to PlayStation.

 

[ussjtrunks]

I really hope people vote with their wallets, these practices are not ok. They just make it worse for consumers

 

[Lothars]

.
The increase in overall welfare will outweigh the negative aspects of the competition. It's good for consumers and it's good for the publishers/devs. The only loser here is Steam, because they're losing their monopoly.

Click to shrink...

so what happens if Eric never does? Years ago they decided to stop releasing games on the pc and only supported consoles. I don't have any faith in epic to support their store long term and I especially don't think buying exclusivity for a year is good. It only hurts the customers.

Why does that matter?

Are you saying that if Epic purchased Deep Silver, it would be "ok"?

Because the impact to consumers is the same, regardless if it's first party or third party.

Click to shrink...

if it's a something epic owns like Fortnite. There's nothing wrong with them using their own launcher as soon as they buy third party games than it is a negative since they are taking away customer choice.