[PCWorld] A year in, the Epic Games Store's fight against Steam has made PC gaming better for everyone.

Kurt Russell

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
640
Mar del Plata
But they’ve given out a ton of free games that are totally worth using the store? I’m pretty sure the free game available right now is Rayman Legends, one of my literal favourite games of all time.

EGS is a fucking disgusting example of capitalism making markets worse to benefit large companies, but I’m really not sure I understand why you’d pretend that the free games aren’t a benefit. You can argue they don’t outweigh the negatives, but the words you’re saying aren’t doing that.
 

U-R

Member
Oct 28, 2017
129
A year later the only thing I notice is how much steam (rightfully) didn't react to the Epic hostile takeover of the pc gaming market, because there was nothing to be done about it: Epic wasn't competing with features, it wasn't competing with a real business plan (12% cut, moneyhats, and free games were there to kill all competitors and never amounted to a sustainable plan), it wasn't competing on making great games as it was just riding the Fortnite cash train, it wasn't competing on giving the customers better prices.

I'd say that at least customers got free games in exchange of losing Steam's features and paying higher monopolistic prices for games.
 

Mondo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,836
ResetERA
Steam basically handled EGS like Luigi in Mario Party by doing absolutely nothing. Half-Life VR was known to be in dev for years and Microsoft had already released Halo games on Steam before.

I think people got free games from EGS tho so that's good, but idk at least I personally didn't really notice any changes other than me not buying EGS exclusives even when they hit Steam since it's a shitty move.

Additionally the whole comment about RDR2 on Steam not performing well is weird when I equally doubt it didn't make waves on EGS as well. Rockstar's own launcher is required to play no matter where you buy it and gave you a free game plus a free premium edition upgrade for buying it through their storefront, so most likely people did end up buying it neither on EGS nor Steam. How is that a win for EGS...?
 

Metroidvania

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,707
I think the biggest thing, for me as a consumer, is that, free games aside (and a theoretical 10 dollar NA discount on Metro), how has EGS offered benefit to me over steam?

Some of the sales have been pretty great %-wise, I suppose (like the Hades 'error' price for 7.50), but aside from that, what features does it contain that allow it to compete with Steam?

Why should I buy a game on EGS instead of Steam if it's offered on both stores? There's like.....zero actual reason I've seen for that question outside of 'competition' (which is asinine, for a whole bunch of reasons)

Rockstar's own launcher is required to play no matter where you buy it and gave you a free game and a free premium edition upgrade for buying it through their storefront, so most people did end up buying it neither on EGS nor Steam. How is that a win for EGS...?
Clearly. we can extrapolate that RDR2 underperforming on Steam means that it HAD to have done better on Epic! Apples to apples comparison!

/s

He made fun of the DARQ dev on twitter for not taking the EGS money. Never looked at him the same since.
....Da fuck?

Schrier's always had some 'hot takes', but....geez.
 

boxingiscool

Member
May 15, 2019
2,998
User Warned - Inflammatory Generalizations
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
 

Gabbo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,091
Ad-lip repeat of when it first was announced. I'm sure these pieces are at least partially bought or just for the click-bait.

EGS "works" is the best thing you can say about it. It didn't improve competition, prices or usability. It's just a shitty launcher.
2020, the year game journos justify their 2019 EGS hot takes with even less of an informed take; it seems
 

Arthands

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,689
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
I mean nobody says they want one storefront. Who says anything about getting rid of Xbox and shits here.
 

Hektor

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,923
Deutschland
I hate launchers!!

That is only reason i hate EpicGamesStore even if it is courting me with a curated lineup of amazing exclusive games and a better revenueshare for hardworking developers who get 88% of the revenue



Death to launchers!!
Long live steam!!
 

Eternia

Member
Oct 25, 2017
94
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
Who hates even hates GOG? I'll leave out consoles because whatever, who says anything about getting rid of them?

Now I'll mention since Microsoft on PC gets a lot of flak because they constantly have made shitty decisions for nearly a decade. Even with all the improvements over the past couple of years, they are still suffering from having a terrible Windows Store backend that quite clearly they don't know how to fix. Maybe if more competitors on the PC side actually try to cater to its users in terms of features and policies, people would be more inviting. More often than not it's all about grabbing more money/marketshare than having a better experience.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,093
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
A fellow pcworld reader! The "yes steam, yes buy" crowd is a vocal minority dont you think? Compertishin is good but they'd rather have developers pay more as they explictly state in every one of their posts. Also, they support internet harrassment. Bad hombres.

SAD!
 

fester

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,459
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
Why reply to the countless criticisms being discussed here when you can just invent your own and then argue against that? Now where have I seen this before...
 

mordecaii83

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,553
I hate launchers!!

That is only reason i hate EpicGamesStore even if it is courting me with a curated lineup of amazing exclusive games and a better revenueshare for hardworking developers who get 88% of the revenue



Death to launchers!!
Long live steam!!
*sigh* I just can't... I really hope this is sarcasm. Like, it only takes 5 minutes to read through a large number of valid reasons people dislike EGS, but we have drive-by shit like this being posted as if it's some instant argument "win".

And even if this post is sarcasm, there's too many similar posts already that I had to say this anyway.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
973
So first you admit that you are exaggerating and create Steam problems that don't exist:
im exaggerating.Yes. But every one of these threads downplays the problems with steam
Then you call any criticism for your made-up problems: weird.
What a weird statement.
And then you come up with this post:
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.
 

XR.

Member
Nov 22, 2018
1,775
I'm not saying epic is perfect, far from it but it's not been too bad for me personally and if anything I do believe that it will push valve to improve steam at a greater tick rate than they would normally.
So when Epic offers a game like Metro Exodus exclusively on their store, what will this move push Valve into?

In the current climate, it's not much they can do in terms of competition. The group that really wants to play Metro, will probably play Metro and won't be influenced by anything Valve does with its store within the same timeframe.

It's likely these people will return to Steam after Metro, since Steam is a more established platform with more features, but as that is already the case right now, they aren't pushed to do anything about it. How is that, if anything, indicative of "competition"?

I think its obvious that more competition for content leads to needing more original content to differentiate yourself.
It doesn't really support your argument when everyone from Campo Santo is currently working on Half-Life: Alyx.

Is this still a sign of reacting to other stores? Especially considering this has been Valve's M.O since its inception.
 
Last edited:

Cyanity

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,232
Literally the only thing Epic has done for PC is moneyhat exclusives, the one thing Valve has not done. Every other development with their store has been work in progress. Who the fuck writes this shit.
Quite literally. Epic just straight up came in and poached half the PC market, and I guess that's laudable for some reason? If anything, the EGS is a cautionary tale of how easily someone with limitless money can take over an industry without actually offering *any* value to consumers whatsoever.
 

Lobster Roll

Member
Sep 24, 2019
1,771
Chicago, IL
Quite literally. Epic just straight up came in and poached half the PC market, and I guess that's laudable for some reason? If anything, the EGS is a cautionary tale of how easily someone with limitless money can take over an industry without actually offering *any* value to consumers whatsoever.
It’s like Wal-Mart showing up to town and hearing people celebrate the rollback prices as a boon or arguing “it’s just another big box store, what’s the big deal?”
 

Espi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,587
Do we know of any account from (anonymous) Valve employees of how things changed for them once EGS entered the scene? I would love to hear some first hand testimony, instead of a mix of truth and erroneous speculation.
Actual footage of Tim Sweeney talking to Gabe Newell
 

Cipherr

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,792
I honestly hate that everyone and their de facto argument is: I want one storefront. Like cool. Let’s get rid of Xbox, PlayStation, Apple, EGS, gog, Nintendo. Let’s just let valve take all the money. I’m sure that’ll work out great.

Strawman argument.

Who is actually saying this.... Or are you creating an argument for the opposition so you can "counter" it?
 

boxingiscool

Member
May 15, 2019
2,998
So first you admit that you are exaggerating and create Steam problems that don't exist:

Then you call any criticism for your made-up problems: weird.

And then you come up with this post:
Let me respond to each quote in turn.
“Create steam problems that don’t exist”. The sentiment there is that steam has no problems. I’m not going to assume anything you’re saying. I don’t want to be reported as a troll. So, I’ll respectfully ask you to clarify. Do you think steam is problem free?

I said some games get overlooked on steam because of the over saturation. That’s a basic issue that many have complained about outside of me. The counter was “lol those unknown indie games that sell a millions on steam”. I didn’t know how to respond so I said it was weird. Because it sidesteps the premise that the games aren’t selling by saying every indie game sells a million. Most arguments would accept the premise and poke holes in my analysis saying something like “even games with visibility don’t sell”. Or “some games don’t sell at all no matter the platform”. Or “games are overlooked by many reasons.” There are a million ways to criticize me while accepting the basic premise that some games get overlooked and their sales are affected by being on steam.

my last statement, I don’t know how many people said that exactly. I also don’t know how many people said it here specifically. I admit that. But the premise is that the status quo - steam for every pc game - should continue in the pc space. People hate navigating new storefronts. People hate launchers. I think the sentiment is, Ive invested a lot in this storefront and I don’t want my experience to change. Which I understand as someone part of a console ecosystem.

I don’t think anything I said was very controversial. I have problems with epic games store too. It’s missing a lot of features and they seem ill equipped to install them personnel-wise because it has taken a long time. I sincerely didn’t mean to troll if that’s the way it looked.
 

GUSH

Member
Nov 17, 2017
1,213
There are a million ways to criticize me while accepting the basic premise that some games get overlooked and their sales are affected by being on steam.
For all the talk of oversaturation no one seems to have a solution other than curation though, which is ironically an even worse situation for the developers currently struggling most because they're the least likely to be chosen on a curated platform in the first place.

If steam was less saturated you wouldn't suddenly see more developers getting the attention they deserve, you'd see less. The only difference would be that the opportunity to succeed for many wouldn't exist in the first place. And that's without going into how games are chosen and which are deserving to be chosen and who it'd tend to favour.

One glance at EGS says it all. Curated storefronts don't help the smallest or most niche developers at all, they help developers and games that would already be likely to succeed on an uncurated platform. Red Dead, Borderlands, Shenmue, Outer Worlds and Hades would never, ever struggle on steam. The people who get favours are the safe picks more often than not.

On the other hand there're countless games on steam that have succeeded where they'd otherwise go ignored, sometimes to the extent where other platform holders take notice and extend them further opportunities as result. I don't see that happening in a major way on a single curated platform and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Funny enough even some devs who complain the loudest about the volume of games on steam are best known as a result of the success they've had there. They had no issue when their game was on the top of the heap and would seem to have no issue being one of the few chosen to be highlighted again on a curated platform either. The problem is that not everyone can succeed but the opportunity to do so equally is always a better circumstance for those who need it most than being gated from participating entirely.
 

erlim

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,405
London
In broad terms, as solely a steam user, losing some cool indies to exclusivity sucks, but being able to get Gears 5, Jedi Last Order, and potentially RDR2 and Halo MCC kinda is a way better deal.
 

Cipherr

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,792
no downsides to there being multiple storefronts


Many Storefronts all selling games, all competing; Giving the gamers a choice.

:Consumers happy:


One storefront comes along and buys exclusive windows taking away the "Many Storefronts" benefits.

:Consumers unhappy:



No one cares that EGS exist. It can exist all it wants. Fragmenting the space is what people have an issue with. But Im sure by now everyone knows this and just pretends to not understand it. Not sure why Im wasting my time. In any case, as it has been, the market will continue to dictate the winners and losers in this situation just like we always said it would.
 

boxingiscool

Member
May 15, 2019
2,998
For all the talk of oversaturation no one seems to have a solution other than curation though, which is ironically an even worse situation for the developers currently struggling most because they're the least likely to be chosen on a curated platform in the first place.

If steam was less saturated you wouldn't suddenly see more developers getting the attention they deserve, you'd see less. The only difference would be that the opportunity to succeed for many wouldn't exist in the first place. And that's without going into how games are chosen and which are deserving to be chosen and who it'd tend to favour.

One glance at EGS says it all. Curated storefronts don't help the smallest or most niche developers at all, they help developers and games that would already be likely to succeed on an uncurated platform. Red Dead, Borderlands, Shenmue, Outer Worlds and Hades would never, ever struggle on steam. The people who get favours are the safe picks more often than not.

On the other hand there're countless games on steam that have succeeded where they'd otherwise go ignored, sometimes to the extent where other platform holders take notice and extend them further opportunities as result. I don't see that happening in a major way on a single curated platform and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Funny enough even some devs who complain the loudest about the volume of games on steam are best known as a result of the success they've had there. They had no issue when their game was on the top of the heap and would seem to have no issue being one of the few chosen to be highlighted again on a curated platform either. The problem is that not everyone can succeed but the opportunity to do so equally is always a better circumstance for those who need it most than being gated from participating entirely.
I admit I’m torn on that. I see your point and perspective. It has solid logic and it’s backed by facts.

I foresee this being the norm until there’s parity in features. Then, once parity is there and the complaints have largely stopped, we will see less exclusives. I think there will still be some but not a ton
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,953
For all the talk of oversaturation no one seems to have a solution other than curation though, which is ironically an even worse situation for the developers currently struggling most because they're the least likely to be chosen on a curated platform in the first place.

If steam was less saturated you wouldn't suddenly see more developers getting the attention they deserve, you'd see less. The only difference would be that the opportunity to succeed for many wouldn't exist in the first place. And that's without going into how games are chosen and which are deserving to be chosen and who it'd tend to favour.

One glance at EGS says it all. Curated storefronts don't help the smallest or most niche developers at all, they help developers and games that would already be likely to succeed on an uncurated platform. Red Dead, Borderlands, Shenmue, Outer Worlds and Hades would never, ever struggle on steam. The people who get favours are the safe picks more often than not.

On the other hand there're countless games on steam that have succeeded where they'd otherwise go ignored, sometimes to the extent where other platform holders take notice and extend them further opportunities as result. I don't see that happening in a major way on a single curated platform and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Funny enough even some devs who complain the loudest about the volume of games on steam are best known as a result of the success they've had there. They had no issue when their game was on the top of the heap and would seem to have no issue being one of the few chosen to be highlighted again on a curated platform either. The problem is that not everyone can succeed but the opportunity to do so equally is always a better circumstance for those who need it most than being gated from participating entirely.
Exactly this. There is also something to note that in PC, as times goes by, even with curation, the platform will end up being oversaturated due to the lack of reset generational button that wipes out previous games.

EGS solution for it was basically try to go back to the early stages of Steam, when only a few games launched (and indies were angry at Valve for choosing winners) without finding a proper solution to the core issue. On the other hand, Steam has tried for years now to fight that "unique" problem for PC (for now) with more and better discoverability tools.

I admit I’m torn on that. I see your point and perspective. It has solid logic and it’s backed by facts.

I foresee this being the norm until there’s parity in features. Then, once parity is there and the complaints have largely stopped, we will see less exclusives. I think there will still be some but not a ton
There will never be parity in features tho. Steam has introduced more new things in this year than EGS has done. The small cut that EGS takes is also something that would prevent them from adding some costly features that Steam has.
 

boxingiscool

Member
May 15, 2019
2,998
Many Storefronts all selling games, all competing; Giving the gamers a choice.

:Consumers happy:


One storefront comes along and buys exclusive windows taking away the "Many Storefronts" benefits.

:Consumers unhappy:



No one cares that EGS exist. It can exist all it wants. Fragmenting the space is what people have an issue with. But Im sure by now everyone knows this and just pretends to not understand it. Not sure why Im wasting my time. In any case, as it has been, the market will continue to dictate the winners and losers in this situation just like we always said it would.
The problem I see with this argument is if it was available on GOG, EA origin or some other launcher, people would still have a problem with it because it’s not on steam. My concern is how much of this is a “you are ruining steam” vs “you’re fragmenting the pc space”. Because I’ve read it as the former
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,188
Texas
Anyone who thinks EGS is a good and sustainably competitive storefront needs to ask why the store has so few games.

It's because they can't afford the cut they're promising and maintain profitability, so they pick select games to allow on their store with (except for truly massive games they can't afford to completely moneyhat) exclusivity clauses. The EGS isn't good for all developers, just the ones Epic picks.
My concern is how much of this is a “you are ruining steam” vs “you’re fragmenting the pc space”. Because I’ve read it as the former
Let's see a quote.
 

Eternia

Member
Oct 25, 2017
94
Let me respond to each quote in turn.
“Create steam problems that don’t exist”. The sentiment there is that steam has no problems. I’m not going to assume anything you’re saying. I don’t want to be reported as a troll. So, I’ll respectfully ask you to clarify. Do you think steam is problem free?
You have a distorted view on the perception of Steam. Who said they don't have problems? They have a lot of issues but still manage to develop features no one else wants to do.

I said some games get overlooked on steam because of the over saturation. That’s a basic issue that many have complained about outside of me. The counter was “lol those unknown indie games that sell a millions on steam”. I didn’t know how to respond so I said it was weird. Because it sidesteps the premise that the games aren’t selling by saying every indie game sells a million. Most arguments would accept the premise and poke holes in my analysis saying something like “even games with visibility don’t sell”. Or “some games don’t sell at all no matter the platform”. Or “games are overlooked by many reasons.” There are a million ways to criticize me while accepting the basic premise that some games get overlooked and their sales are affected by being on steam.
Well there are at least five one-liner posts in this thread beating the "competition is good" drum. This is that in a nutshell but with developers against each other. Why is it suddenly bad now? It will only become worse as consoles continue with backwards compatibility and curation won't solve it at all. The industry quite clearly is moving away from that model and has opened the floodgates. Guess who out of all the platforms is actually attempting to build solutions for that problem? Valve. Not Microsoft, not Sony, not Nintendo, not even Epic. Valve has done more than all of those others combined.

my last statement, I don’t know how many people said that exactly. I also don’t know how many people said it here specifically. I admit that. But the premise is that the status quo - steam for every pc game - should continue in the pc space. People hate navigating new storefronts. People hate launchers. I think the sentiment is, Ive invested a lot in this storefront and I don’t want my experience to change. Which I understand as someone part of a console ecosystem.

I don’t think anything I said was very controversial. I have problems with epic games store too. It’s missing a lot of features and they seem ill equipped to install them personnel-wise because it has taken a long time. I sincerely didn’t mean to troll if that’s the way it looked.
People dislike superficial storefronts that add zero to platform, more commonly detrimental to the platform because they are featureless or don't work optimally.
 

Bacon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,149
I truly don't understand what the issue with EGS is. If I want to get a game that is exclusively on EGS literally all I have to do is go download EGS. It costs me nothing at all except a couple megabytes of storage.