Metro Exodus for PC a timed exclusive for the Epic store (Steam preorders honoured, physical copy with Epic key). [READ staff post]

Oct 25, 2017
9,328
and then they put out games on PC afterwards anyways that weren't on steam

somehow you're trying to move the goalposts from your wrong assertion that steam is the only reason Epic has put games on PC to "Epic treats PC gamers bad"

and even that latter point is a hard sell
after Steam made the overall PC market much bigger, yes
you're almost getting to the point. almost there.
 
Oct 25, 2017
483
Nobody said Steam is the only reason why Epic put out PC games. They said Steam is the only reason Epic started focusing on it again, after mostly abandoning the platform in the mid 2000's and calling PC gamers out for being pirates in the process.

Steam significantly reduced piracy and made the PC market grow to what it is today, and now Epic want part of that pie. It really shouldn't be hard to understand that.
But Epic hasn't been using Steam to put out its games ever since they "came back." Plus the fact remains that by all accounts, piracy continued to be rampant on PC until games started getting massive and it became much, much harder to pirate a game than to just buy it.

Even if you're gonna go with the narrative that Steam singlehandedly killed piracy (which isn't something that's necessarily backed up by the numbers, but I guess if it feels true to you that's close enough), wouldn't the fact that Epic put out Shadow Complex Remastered and Fortnite and UT on its own launcher make it apparent that whatever "benefit" Steam gave to stopping piracy, Epic had no interest in it?

Like, your argument only makes sense in a sort of "STEAM KILLED PIRACY FOREVER AND ALL PC GAMING IS SAVED" fantasy.

after Steam made the overall PC market much bigger, yes
you're almost getting to the point. almost there.
Epic has straight up come out and said most of the people who downloaded and use the Epic Launcher don't have steam accounts. They're kids who downloaded it for Fortnite. You can't argue that Epic is piggybacking off of Steam making PC gaming bigger when Epic isn't necessarily targeting the people who have Steam accounts.

But let's say that Epic needs the new users Steam brought into PC gaming to be successful. And let's pretend it isn't stagnant consoles or PC gaming becoming more user-friendly that made PC gaming grow, but entirely Steam's existence. So what? Epic should just never dare to even threaten Steam's existence because otherwise how will Gaben afford his two thousandth knife?
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
4,793
Fair point. You can vote with your wallet. Still, it’s a great move by Epic that will put the store on the map for good.

I love more competition. The dominance of Steam was never a good thing. No matter how good their service is. Epic and Discord gaining more traction in the Industry is only good for us and devs in the end.
Yeah, never a good thing. It's only good for us:
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,793
Epic has straight up come out and said most of the people who downloaded and use the Epic Launcher don't have steam accounts. They're kids who downloaded it for Fortnite. You can't argue that Epic is piggybacking off of Steam making PC gaming bigger when Epic isn't necessarily targeting the people who have Steam accounts.

But let's say that Epic needs the new users Steam brought into PC gaming to be successful. And let's pretend it isn't stagnant consoles or PC gaming becoming more user-friendly that made PC gaming grow, but entirely Steam's existence. So what? Epic should just never dare to even threaten Steam's existence because otherwise how will Gaben afford his two thousandth knife?

DING DING DING.
We've got a winner here. How PC gaming became more user friendly ? Because Steam being a "monopoly" meant a unified, pro-customer, betting on features, easy to use and free to use backend that is called Steamworks API and Steam launcher.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,978
Have the developers actually responded to why the game is cheaper in America but everyone else has to pay more?
I'm guessing this would be on the publisher who decided on the price for each region. But the "sale" price in purely a marketing move. No other game on the Epic store, that is available on other stores, is cheaper than other stores as far as I can see. I'm looking at USD pricing.

How do they know that? Are they violating GDPR here as well lol?
I always wondered if this was based off the fact you can link your steam account to the epic account and this is what epic is tracking.

https://epicgames.helpshift.com/a/e...ount-friends-list-via-the-epic-games-launcher

I have an epic account and there is no way I'm linking my steam account to it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,861
How do they know that? Are they violating GDPR here as well lol?
I just want to highlight that another Tencent backed company, Riot, scan all running programs on your system and if they see anything with the title "Cheat Engine", League of Legends crashes. Even if it's just Chrome with a Cheat Engine related google search open.

It would not surprise me AT ALL if Epic were doing something similar, and scanning what other programs people are using. Sergey has even said that he wants the Epic store to provide more data tracking methods than what Steam allows developers to use.
 
Oct 27, 2017
600
But Epic hasn't been using Steam to put out its games ever since they "came back." Plus the fact remains that by all accounts, piracy continued to be rampant on PC until games started getting massive and it became much, much harder to pirate a game than to just buy it.
Are you actually arguing that piracy is down due to file size? How does that even make sense
 

Morrigan

Armoring
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
7,913
I just want to highlight that another Tencent backed company, Riot, scan all running programs on your system and if they see anything with the title "Cheat Engine", League of Legends crashes. Even if it's just Chrome with a Cheat Engine related google search open.
Wait what

This can't be true?!
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,861
Wait what

This can't be true?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rBzKJxbOk

https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueofle.../lol_reads_your_browser_tabs_is_this_a_gross/

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.c...g-cheat-engine-in-google-will-crash-your-game

It seems to do it by reading whatever the process title is, which is the same level of access Epic would need to determine if people have Steam or whatever open.

I really, really like that Itch includes a sandbox and hope other stores include one in the future to make this kind of data tracking harder.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
724
It would not surprise me AT ALL if Epic were doing something similar, and scanning what other programs people are using. Sergey has even said that he wants the Epic store to provide more data tracking methods than what Steam allows developers to use.
I mean, it should not come as a surprise that a guy obsessed with tracking even the most useless statistics wants to track even more statistics.
Also that's another plus for Steam (reviews). There's a guy I'm following that does reviews of games based on all the tracking the game does and what websites these games contact, it gets really frightening but sadly all his reviews are in German.
 

Morrigan

Armoring
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
7,913
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rBzKJxbOk

https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueofle.../lol_reads_your_browser_tabs_is_this_a_gross/

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.c...g-cheat-engine-in-google-will-crash-your-game

It seems to do it by reading whatever the process title is, which is the same level of access Epic would need to determine if people have Steam or whatever open.

I really, really like the Itch includes a sandbox and hope other stores include one in the future to make this kind of data tracking harder.
Wow. This is insane. >_<
 
Nov 1, 2017
3,773
Eastern US
And the dev is fine with this attitude! Wait until the Steam release if you must.
What he rightly calls out are the folks constantly heckling on social media, review bombing older games, posting personal threats and repeated proclamations of plans to pirate the game.

Developers are human beings. Why the faux outrage here that a dev is tired of receiving toxic abuse over a business decision made by his publisher?
The faux outrage is because the fans of the developers and the game were waiting for the release until the pathetic move to force them to shitty Epic store?

Real what you saw and all.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,861
I mean, it should not come as a surprise that a guy obsessed with tracking even the most useless statistics wants to track even more statistics.
Also that's another plus for Steam (reviews). There's a guy I'm following that does reviews of games based on all the tracking the game does and what websites these games contact, it gets really frightening but sadly all his reviews are in German.
That sounds like a great curator. I'd like to see something similar in English. Could I get a basic idea from this guy based on what he recommends and what he doesn't?

Honestly, the fact that the Epic store is partially run by a guy obsessed with tracking user data would be enough to turn me off of it even without all these exclusivity deals.
 
Nov 1, 2017
3,773
Eastern US
Even then, they have The Lab, along with constant large updates for 2 service games. That's more than what Epic have done. We also know there are other games in the works, and there's in the valley of gods this year.
Don't forget their work on VR and development of new hardware for it as well.

Frankly to hell with Half-Life. I value everything else Valve is doing 10x that, probably even more. There are thousands of games releasing each year but there is only one company that is truly working to make PC gaming better overall, even if it's in self-interest.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,861
Don't forget their work on VR and development of new hardware for it as well.

Frankly to hell with Half-Life. I value everything else Valve is doing 10x that, probably even more. There are thousands of games releasing each year but there is only one company that is truly working to make PC gaming better overall, even if it's in self-interest.
I didn't! It was in my original reply. The guy then returned with a "well obviously I was just talking about the games".
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,146
Epic has straight up come out and said most of the people who downloaded and use the Epic Launcher don't have steam accounts. They're kids who downloaded it for Fortnite. You can't argue that Epic is piggybacking off of Steam making PC gaming bigger when Epic isn't necessarily targeting the people who have Steam accounts.
Are you saying that EPIC is knowingly wasting money on turning games into exclusive for their store for no reason at all ?

I mean if the objective is neither to stop current Epic Launcher users to buy it on steam since they don't even have steam, nor turn Steam user into Epic store user.... why spend that money ? they just love those publisher so much they badly want to give them money but they just feel jealous sharing ?
 
Dec 9, 2017
792
Don't forget their work on VR and development of new hardware for it as well.

Frankly to hell with Half-Life. I value everything else Valve is doing 10x that, probably even more. There are thousands of games releasing each year but there is only one company that is truly working to make PC gaming better overall, even if it's in self-interest.
I hope they keep working on making pc gaming better with software and features instead of first party games tbh. And I hope they "embrace" the inevitably of new launchers and use software to make it easier to use games from other launchers in Steam, with the features that Steam has to offer.
 
Oct 26, 2017
724
That sounds like a great curator. I'd like to see something similar in English. Could I get a basic idea from this guy based on what he recommends and what he doesn't?

Honestly, the fact that the Epic store is partially run by a guy obsessed with tracking user data would be enough to turn me off of it even without all these exclusivity deals.
He basically recommends nothing lol. But he points out which metrics you can block. Like every second game he reviews is running things through Google's ad management and sometimes includes IP addresses and geolocations, MAC addresses and other similar stuff.
Most games these days track everything you do while playing them and immediately send these informations back to the homebase, be that Google, Amazon, Microsoft or some of the smaller fish.
 
Oct 26, 2017
958
He basically recommends nothing lol. But he points out which metrics you can block. Like every second game he reviews is running things through Google's ad management and sometimes includes IP addresses and geolocations, MAC addresses and other similar stuff.
Most games these days track everything you do while playing them and immediately send these informations back to the homebase, be that Google, Amazon, Microsoft or some of the smaller fish.
Would you be able to link this curator?
 
Three objections. First, PC gaming isn't console gaming. Various companies have attempted to force console-style business practices on PC and they always fail. Valve's success is based on the fact that Steam is a PC-focused service, offering functionality that PC users want. GOG, the second biggest service, is a PC-focused service offering a unique selling point that is important to PC users. Thw Windows Store has plenty of quality exclusives and no one is buying from it. Trying to find success on PC by treating it like a console will always end in failure.
I agree with you, PC gaming isn't console gaming. But that alone doesn't necessarily mean anything in and of itself. The reason Microsoft can't convince people to pay a fee to play online on PC is because it isn't a monopolized market--not because it's automatically immune to the concept. People will simply play through other means in order to avoid the fee.

This isn't really relevant in this context though, since gaming as a whole is not monopolized. Any company is free to launch their own console with exclusive products and services just as any company is free to launch their own launcher/store with exclusive products and services. There's nothing inherently wrong with paying for exclusives or selling the exclusive selling rights for your product. If this was a necessity good we would have a completely different debate at our hands, but this is a pure luxury item and no one owes you anything in terms of how you access it.

Second, there is a way for Epic to have exclusive content without moneyhatting. Develope original content for your service. Build studios, make games and sell them through the store. But again, that takes work, dedication and a long-term commitment. Are they willing to put in the work?
Of course there are other ways of doing it, but why would they do differently and why should they?

I think the distinction here is entirely arbitrary. You're saying it's unacceptable for Epic to purchase exclusive selling rights, but if they change the deal and increase the payment to a point where they eventually own the whole game it's suddenly acceptable and people won't have any complaints about exclusivity, missing features or them being greedy.

I'm also curious, where exactly do we draw the line for what's acceptable? Funding the whole development of the game, or half? Or do you require them to own the studio, IP, game?

Third, exclusives for console are so hugely important because it costs hundreds of dollars to move to a different platform as a customer.
We can certainly agree on that! Exclusives are more essential on consoles due to the financial barrier, but I think the the point still stands; there's no reason to migrate to a platform with no exclusives, even if it's identical to Steam or Playstation in terms of features and overall usability.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2017
715
You can't argue that Epic is piggybacking off of Steam making PC gaming bigger when Epic isn't necessarily targeting the people who have Steam accounts.
Obviously one of Epic's big focuses is turning Fortnite players into more general game buyers, but you can't really argue they aren't going for the Steam marketshare too. They actively buy out games that were releasing on Steam to make them only release on their own store. Why would some young Fortnite player that doesn't use Steam and who's ready to try some different games care if Metro Exodus wasn't exclusive to the Epic Store but was also on Steam? They want Steam gamers because a lot of them actually buy games.
 
Oct 27, 2017
402
New Zealand
I'm happy for 4A games going exclusive and getting a nice shot of $$ from Epic to help their studio out.

I pre-ordered on Steam, and my salt levels are not at all there, I'm truly bewildered at gamers getting so angry about this, and I'm actually cringe af ashamed of the review bombing that went on this last week, so juvenile and uncalled for.

That latest statement from 4A, about if it doesn't sell on PC then no PC next time, shows it really hurt them...and I'm ashamed of this, as a proud gamer.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
Obviously one of Epic's big focuses is turning Fortnite players into more general game buyers, but you can't really argue they aren't going for the Steam marketshare too. They actively buy out games that were releasing on Steam to make them only release on their own store. Why would some young Fortnite player that doesn't use Steam and who's ready to try some different games care if Metro Exodus wasn't exclusive to the Epic Store but was also on Steam? They want Steam gamers because a lot of them actually buy games.
Yes it’s funny when people supporting Epic constantly bring that up, which goes counter to their actions.

Deliberately targeting games that Steam users might want in order to get them to move over.

If Epic has a massive trove of fortnite players that has never known Steam, they are spending all their efforts trying to go after Steam Users instead,
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,978
Obviously one of Epic's big focuses is turning Fortnite players into more general game buyers, but you can't really argue they aren't going for the Steam marketshare too. They actively buy out games that were releasing on Steam to make them only release on their own store. Why would some young Fortnite player that doesn't use Steam and who's ready to try some different games care if Metro Exodus wasn't exclusive to the Epic Store but was also on Steam? They want Steam gamers because a lot of them actually buy games.
Yeah I've been struggling with the dueling narrative that the epic store is supposed to be so appealing because there is a huge built in Fortnite audience with the fact Epic is tossing money like crazy for exclusives. These two things don't really go together. If Epic could rely on a massive built in Fortnite audience to buy games from their store they would have no need for exclusives. The only real answer I can think of is Epic isn't fully confident they can convert the Fortnite audience to their store while they know the Steam audience buys tons of games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
Yeah I've been struggling with the dueling narrative that the epic store is supposed to be so appealing because there is a huge built in Fortnite audience with the fact Epic is tossing money like crazy for exclusives. These two things don't really go together. If Epic could rely on a massive built in Fortnite audience to buy games from their store they would have no need for exclusives. The only real answer I can think of is Epic isn't fully confident they can convert the Fortnite audience to their store while they know the Steam audience buys tons of games.
IMO the fortnite players are main bait they show the developers and publishers to get to onto the store that there is a sizable population for their games already.

What their actions reveal is that they want to take as much of the Steam User base right now because they don’t have my metics about if Fortnite players will covert into game buyers. And as you said, Steam users do buy games and everyone knows this.
 

Lump

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,118
Obviously one of Epic's big focuses is turning Fortnite players into more general game buyers, but you can't really argue they aren't going for the Steam marketshare too. They actively buy out games that were releasing on Steam to make them only release on their own store. Why would some young Fortnite player that doesn't use Steam and who's ready to try some different games care if Metro Exodus wasn't exclusive to the Epic Store but was also on Steam? They want Steam gamers because a lot of them actually buy games.
From a business perspective, it’s sort of a required move - Fortnite is the biggest game now, but there’s that possibility that the game is just a fad for most of its playerbase and that Epic can see a major decline in Fortnite revenue in a year or so. Do I personally believe it’ll follow a WoW trajectory? Yes, it’ll probably get more popular before a steady decline. Optimistically for Epic, it’ll follow a LoL trajectory where it just keeps on growing, but it’s too early to say that it’ll achieve that. One doesn’t really know for sure, and it’s tough building a business around one single great cash cow where there’s a possibility that 80% of its players will be over it by 2021 or 2022.

But a digital storefront - if they can pull that off now using all that immediate Fortnite revenue, now that’s a business with legs. That’s something that Epic can really make a 5, 10, maybe 15 year business plan on. It’s not a given that it’ll be successful, but it’s damn well worth the effort and capital to try from Epic’s point of view. And if their market differentiator is giving developers a bigger cut, that’s just better for the industry in the long term - especially if they can get Steam to consider making their revenue model more attractive as well.

Early 2019 Epic Store isn’t close to Steam in its features and is still lagging behind in regional support, but Epic does have the talent and plenty of capital to get it there (or at least damn close) in 12-18 months. And if they do, PC gaming will be better off when developers are keeping more of the revenue share.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
From a business perspective, it’s sort of a required move - Fortnite is the biggest game now, but there’s that possibility that the game is just a fad for most of its playerbase and that Epic can see a major decline in Fortnite revenue in a year or so. Do I personally believe it’ll follow a WoW trajectory? Yes, it’ll probably get more popular before a steady decline. Optimistically for Epic, it’ll follow a LoL trajectory where it just keeps on growing, but it’s too early to say that it’ll achieve that. One doesn’t really know for sure, and it’s tough building a business around one single great cash cow where there’s a possibility that 80% of its players will be over it by 2021 or 2022.

But a digital storefront - if they can pull that off now using all that immediate Fortnite revenue, now that’s a business with legs. That’s something that Epic can really make a 5, 10, maybe 15 year business plan on. It’s not a given that it’ll be successful, but it’s damn well worth the effort and capital to try from Epic’s point of view. And if their market differentiator is giving developers a bigger cut, that’s just better for the industry in the long term - especially if they can get Steam to consider making their revenue model more attractive as well.

Early 2019 Epic Store isn’t close to Steam in its features and is still lagging behind in regional support, but Epic does have the talent and plenty of capital to get it there (or at least damn close) in 12-18 months. And if they do, PC gaming will be better off when developers are keeping more of the revenue share.
They have done almost nothing proactively beside buying up exclusives.

So far every major consumer feature has been rushed due to criticism.

Saying Epic is behind Steam is an understatement, Epic is behind 2008 Steam much less 2019 Steam.
 
Oct 31, 2017
715
IMO the fortnite players are main bait they show the developers and publishers to get to onto the store that there is a sizable population for their games already.

What their actions reveal is that they want to take as much of the Steam User base right now because they don’t have my metics about if Fortnite players will covert into game buyers. And as you said, Steam users do buy games and everyone knows this.
I think they have a general idea of the conversion rate of Fortnite player to general game buyer. There's a 4 year old SteamSpy article Epic probably wishes was never written that talks about how the number of "core" game buyers who play a variety of games is quite small compared to the total number of people who play games. The top 1 percent of game players (1.3 mil accounts at the time) owned at least 104 games and had 33 percent of all games purchased. To make it into the top 20 percent (owning 88 percent of the total games sold), you only have to own 4 games. Most of the rest are those players playing a single game such as Dota 2.

To quote:
Sergey Galyonkin said:
Various studies suggest that there are 700–800 million of PC gamers. It’s probably true, but it doesn’t mean much for your game. Because if you’re developing a downloadable game for Steam you’re not even fighting for 135M of its active users, you’re fighting for the attention of 1.3 million gamers that are actually buying lots of games. The 1% group.
Epic currently has what are functionally Dota 2 players. They play a game. For their store they want players who play plural games. The kind of people who would buy a game like Ashen or Metro Exodus or Super Meatboy Forever. They may be telling devs how amazing it will be to be put on a pedestal in front of the Fortnite audience, but in reality they're betting their money on the more established buyers Valve cultivated with Steam. Honestly, I think if they want these people to play games they should just start giving every game exclusive Fortnite skins or whatever. It probably did wonders for getting free TF2 players to check out other things back in the day.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,062
Epic currently has what are functionally Dota 2 players. They play a game. For their store they want players who play plural games. The kind of people who would buy a game like Ashen or Metro Exodus or Super Meatboy Forever. They may be telling devs how amazing it will be to be put on a pedestal in front of the Fortnite audience, but in reality they're betting their money on the more established buyers Valve cultivated with Steam. Honestly, I think if they want these people to play games they should just start giving every game exclusive Fortnite skins or whatever. It probably did wonders for getting free TF2 players to check out other things back in the day.
that would be a very smart play and one that would benefit the Epic game store way more than them buying exclusivity for a year and it's one I don't see them doing anytime soon if ever.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
that would be a very smart play and one that would benefit the Epic game store way more than them buying exclusivity for a year and it's one I don't see them doing anytime soon if ever.
That would require them doing things like Valve, consumer focused. And considering how they go out of their way to compare themselves to Steam (ignoring all the myriad of ways they are deficient) I doubt they will do it.

Rather then throw money at everything to buy exclusives, they could buy content! Shocker.
 

Lump

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,118
They have done almost nothing proactively beside buying up exclusives.

So far every major consumer feature has been rushed due to criticism.

Saying Epic is behind Steam is an understatement, Epic is behind 2008 Steam much less 2019 Steam.
As long as Epic gets to 90%+ feature parity in a reasonable timeframe (which I would say is 12-18 months for a company like Epic just really getting serious about it), I don’t care if they get there proactively or reactively as long as they get there.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,714
Dark Space
I'm happy for 4A games going exclusive and getting a nice shot of $$ from Epic to help their studio out.

I pre-ordered on Steam, and my salt levels are not at all there, I'm truly bewildered at gamers getting so angry about this, and I'm actually cringe af ashamed of the review bombing that went on this last week, so juvenile and uncalled for.

That latest statement from 4A, about if it doesn't sell on PC then no PC next time, shows it really hurt them...and I'm ashamed of this, as a proud gamer.
I wonder how smug you'd be if you had missed out on the Steam preorder.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,753
From a business perspective, it’s sort of a required move - Fortnite is the biggest game now, but there’s that possibility that the game is just a fad for most of its playerbase and that Epic can see a major decline in Fortnite revenue in a year or so. Do I personally believe it’ll follow a WoW trajectory? Yes, it’ll probably get more popular before a steady decline. Optimistically for Epic, it’ll follow a LoL trajectory where it just keeps on growing, but it’s too early to say that it’ll achieve that. One doesn’t really know for sure, and it’s tough building a business around one single great cash cow where there’s a possibility that 80% of its players will be over it by 2021 or 2022.

But a digital storefront - if they can pull that off now using all that immediate Fortnite revenue, now that’s a business with legs. That’s something that Epic can really make a 5, 10, maybe 15 year business plan on. It’s not a given that it’ll be successful, but it’s damn well worth the effort and capital to try from Epic’s point of view. And if their market differentiator is giving developers a bigger cut, that’s just better for the industry in the long term - especially if they can get Steam to consider making their revenue model more attractive as well.

Early 2019 Epic Store isn’t close to Steam in its features and is still lagging behind in regional support, but Epic does have the talent and plenty of capital to get it there (or at least damn close) in 12-18 months. And if they do, PC gaming will be better off when developers are keeping more of the revenue share.
I completely agree with this, and even said this pretty much point for point at the end of my podcast this week, but I don't agree with your last line. Unless we're talking about indie devs who self-publish, the only ones getting more money are publishers. I doubt 4A is getting anything extra from this deal.
 
Oct 27, 2017
156
C'mon guys. It's not that hard to read up. My post was CLEARLY part of a discussion about PC game releases. The guy's follow up response even is in that vein.
The point still stands. When it comes to PC development, Valve offers tools and technology that are more valuable than games, tools and technology that push the platform forward as a whole. They aren't just twiddling their thumbs in between game releases.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,062
As long as Epic gets to 90%+ feature parity in a reasonable timeframe (which I would say is 12-18 months for a company like Epic just really getting serious about it), I don’t care if they get there proactively or reactively as long as they get there.
If they don't get 90% feature parity before the exclusivity is done for the games they have already bought than it won't matter especially if the only thing they have going for them is moneyhatting devs by taking games for a year. It's hard to believe they will put any effort in their store.
 
I completely agree with this, and even said this pretty much point for point at the end of my podcast this week, but I don't agree with your last line. Unless we're talking about indie devs who self-publish, the only ones getting more money are publishers. I doubt 4A is getting anything extra from this deal.
If the publisher isn't recognizing the money they received from Epic as a part of the total revenue made from game, I'd argue that's an issue isolated from the exclusivity itself. That's an issue with management rather than the deal.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,439
YThe only real answer I can think of is Epic isn't fully confident they can convert the Fortnite audience to their store while they know the Steam audience buys tons of games.
Is there any evidence that this is the case? I mean, in reality there is a very tiny minority of Steam users buying tons of games, and everyone else buying a game or two. The AVERAGE Steam user owns 11 games. I bet there isn't a person on this forum who uses Steam regularly who doesn't own at least 100 games and I know a few own over 1,000. Hell, a full third of the games bought on Steam are never even played.

The Steam audience as a whole doesn't buy "tons" of games, most of them own a few at most.
 
Oct 28, 2017
66
Is there any evidence that this is the case? I mean, in reality there is a very tiny minority of Steam users buying tons of games, and everyone else buying a game or two. The AVERAGE Steam user owns 11 games. I bet there isn't a person on this forum who uses Steam regularly who doesn't own at least 100 games and I know a few own over 1,000. Hell, a full third of the games bought on Steam are never even played.

The Steam audience as a whole doesn't buy "tons" of games, most of them own a few at most.
It ends up being a question of demographics and disposable income, the Fortnite userbase skews young, kids who are relying on parents to pay for their purchases, the steam user base is more likely to be of age to earn income. How that translates into purchasing habits across both platforms would require Epic to start surfacing data that they currently don't.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,400
The Steam audience as a whole doesn't buy "tons" of games, most of them own a few at most.
And ownership isn't quite the same as purchasing anyway - how many people have bought a game bundle just for one game? How many people have forgotten to pause or cancel their Humble Monthly subscription and so end up with games registered to their account that they don't even particularly want? How many register a free game to their account simply because it's free?
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,240
USA USA USA
Is there any evidence that this is the case? I mean, in reality there is a very tiny minority of Steam users buying tons of games, and everyone else buying a game or two. The AVERAGE Steam user owns 11 games. I bet there isn't a person on this forum who uses Steam regularly who doesn't own at least 100 games and I know a few own over 1,000. Hell, a full third of the games bought on Steam are never even played.

The Steam audience as a whole doesn't buy "tons" of games, most of them own a few at most.
so what you're saying is if they got the average steam user over to the epic store theyd own every game available on it
 

Isee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,835
And if they do, PC gaming will be better off when developers are keeping more of the revenue share.
Steam is giving everybody a chance to publish their small game, this increased both the amount of good and bad games on PC. The problem isn't that there are only bad aset flips on Steam. The problem is that there are too many good games out there.

Take 2018, I've bought:

Into the Breach
Cuphead (Title from 2017)
Celeste
Vermintide 2
Ghost of a Tale (Title from 2017)
BattleTech
Mutant Year Zero
Divinity OS2 (2017)
Frostpunk
Battlefleet Gorhic Armada 2 (beta in 2018, release this January)

Those are just the specific games I like and I even had to skip some that I'm interested in like Surviving Mars, Frozen Synapse 2, Return of the Obra Dinn, Pillars of Eternity 2 or Phantom Doctrine! Because no way, I can play everything I want to. I already have to choose, especially if you factor in all the fantastic AAA games that came out last year like RE7, God of War (yes I also have consoles), Forza Horizon 4, Red Dead 2, Odyssey, Spiderman, MHW, FC5 etc.

My point is:
The EGS will have to open up, if it wants to grow. It's inevetible. Even it they, somehow magical, manage to only put on good games on their store. It will still be an over-saturation.

In the end, the EGS won't do any kind of wonders for indy devs once it opens up. If your good game can't get sales on steam, because there is to much good competition, it won't get sales on the EGS because the same kind of competition will be on there too. A better cut from nothing is still nothing. In the end only indy devs with some kind of brand recognition will be able to profit, a few lucky new ones, but the most profit will be made by publishers that are able to put some kind of marketing behind their developers. Worst case scenario: This will allow publishers to grow even bigger, put more weight into marketing, ultimately making life for true, new indy devs even harder.
Epic is using the 12% cut as honey to big publishers and those already "winning" indy devs. This doesn't mean a new golden era for indy development, the same games struggling on Steam in 2021 will struggle on the EGS in 2021, independent of their quality. We can make too many good choices atm. Take Pillars of eternity 2, I'm sure as hell it's a good game. But I had no time to play it and I'm not buying preemptively and the game is, apperently, struggeling. Which is sad!

Epics strategy here is very questionable:

Step 1: Give publishers more money, both from bribes and sales.
Step 2: Ly and make it sound like you are doing it for some kind of greater good ("We support indy devs!")
Step 3: Instead of also using honey on your future costumers, force them to come. Which lead to anger and bad PR.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit
 
Jan 16, 2019
27
I'm happy for 4A games going exclusive and getting a nice shot of $$ from Epic to help their studio out.

I pre-ordered on Steam, and my salt levels are not at all there, I'm truly bewildered at gamers getting so angry about this, and I'm actually cringe af ashamed of the review bombing that went on this last week, so juvenile and uncalled for.

That latest statement from 4A, about if it doesn't sell on PC then no PC next time, shows it really hurt them...and I'm ashamed of this, as a proud gamer.
This honestly has to be a troll post because if not, then i have no hope
 

Isee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,835
People praising epic for buying third party games are not realizing what other publishers will really learn here. If they don't need Steam, they don't need Epic as well. Why shouldn't Sega, 2k, THQ, Capcom, Bandai, WB not release their own, even more shitty store front, get a 100% cut and entirely control their "key" market? Marketing can still be done thanks to Twitch/YT and normal advertising on TV, Sites and Magazines. On the other side, if third party money-hatting doesn't work: Steam will become even more influential. It's kind of a strange situation tbh.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,978
Is there any evidence that this is the case? I mean, in reality there is a very tiny minority of Steam users buying tons of games, and everyone else buying a game or two. The AVERAGE Steam user owns 11 games. I bet there isn't a person on this forum who uses Steam regularly who doesn't own at least 100 games and I know a few own over 1,000. Hell, a full third of the games bought on Steam are never even played.

The Steam audience as a whole doesn't buy "tons" of games, most of them own a few at most.
I have no idea, I'm just speculating. But we know f2p audience doesn't mean increased sales of other games based off of Galyonkin when he talked about f2p gamers not really buying many other games. With the moves Epic are making, they seem to be targeting Steam customers. Probably because the Fortnite audience isn't a reliable audience for their store, while they can try to get steam whales to move over.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,912
I agree with you, PC gaming isn't console gaming. But that alone doesn't necessarily mean anything in and of itself.
It means that this difference is important to people and worth preserving. This is why Epic is facing suck backlash to their console-style moneyhatting.

There's nothing inherently wrong with paying for exclusives or selling the exclusive selling rights for your product. If this was a necessity good we would have a completely different debate at our hands, but this is a pure luxury item and no one owes you anything in terms of how you access it.
That is certainly an opinion and although I strongly disagree with it, I don't consider it an invalid one. The hypocrisy that I often see in such a matter-of-fact "it's just business" stance is that it only goes one way for people who believe it. Specifically, the publisher-developer way and not the customer way. Under that theory, publishers and developers are seemingly free to make business decisions that go against the interests of their customers but never the other way around.

So if you do want to talk in plain "it's just business" terms, I don't owe publishers and developers shit and I will express myself and spend my money any way I see fit. If developers really want the relationship with their customers to be a strictly business one, it means that I don't have to care about storefront cuts, crunch periods, publisher pressure, mass layoffs, the developers' livelihood and working conditions. Games are products, developers are cogs in the machine that makes them and I don't give a rat's ass what happens to them as long as I get the product I want. It's just business.

Tell me now. Does the above sound good to you? Because there is a huge contradiction in saying that customers should care about developers while simultaneously shutting down criticism with "it's just business".

I think the distinction here is entirely arbitrary. You're saying it's unacceptable for Epic to purchase exclusive selling rights, but if they change the deal and increase the payment to a point where they eventually own the whole game it's suddenly acceptable and people won't have any complaints about exclusivity, missing features or them being greedy.
It's not such a difficult puzzle. It's the distinction between "I want your business so I produced this piece of original content you can't get anywhere else" vs "I want your business so I paid off the creators of this already existing content to not sell it anywhere else". Paying to create something vs paying to withhold something.