The Epic Store, In Its Current State, is Not Good for Anyone by David Galindo

[ThankDougie]

The developer generates the key.

If that developer then wants to sell through Humble, yes there is a separate Humble split (75% dev, 10% charity, 15% humble), but the developer is free to sell it wherever they want, including their own website or bundled with Itch.io copies, where only the usual variable cut with 10% default applies.

Click to shrink...

Have to agree that's a great benefit of not signing up for an exclusive deal. But I really don't see how that makes Epic essentially bad or unviable as a competitor, which seems to me the heart of the arguments posted. I do not disagree Epic has any of the problems listed in those posts. I simply disagree that it's bad for business as a whole or bad for video games in general, as Epic's not doing much that isn't already implicit in the system itself.

Steam is nowhere near as innocent as it's been made out to be since this news came to light. And I don't think Epic or any of the devs signing up for their store are harebrained in taking this approach to competing.

 

[Teeth]

The question is, as a consumer, what is it about the Epic Store that would make you want to come back or "switch over"?

Like, let's say you buy SuperGiant's Hades and you love it. Your new favourite game. Then Hades 2 comes out and it's available on Epic's store and Steam day and date.

Why would you buy the game on Epic's store? What benefit does it have to you as Joe-Hades-fan?

 

[Mobius and Pet Octopus]

Reading the article, i found so many parallel to the nintendo switch launch
-Lack of basic features for the "It's 2017" consumer
-Extremely selective on the games it will release there
-It had going for it the that zelda launched for it almost exclusevily

Did indies going timed exclusive for switch was also ill regarded?
The only difference is that epic has show that they don't really take too long to update their services, am i wrong?

But, okay, not saying that epic store is ok as is. They definitively need to improve. Since most games are a year exclusive, waiting a year and see how it goes its the bare minimum, liking or not, i guess. I can wait a year no problem, not like its something essential for me or anyone anyway. All in all, its a good opotunnity to pratice my patience.

Click to shrink...

It's the same arguments that crop up every time something new comes along to compete at what the "mass" or a group of people already like. Saw it with origin. "OMG 2 digital libraries". Even saw it recently with destiny/cod going to bnet. People are zealously loyal to brands and on the other foot they call you out for defending corporations.

I've heard way worse things about occulus rift's store at their launch, and I still don't think PC gaming is suddenly shit or significantly worse.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

Have to agree that's a great benefit of not signing up for an exclusive deal. But I really don't see how that makes Epic essentially bad or unviable as a competitor, which seems to me the heart of the arguments posted. I do not disagree Epic has any of the problems listed in those posts. I simply disagree that it's bad for business as a whole or bad for video games in general, as Epic's not doing much that isn't already implicit in the system itself.

Steam is nowhere near as innocent as it's been made out to be since this news came to light. And I don't think Epic or any of the devs signing up for their store are harebrained in taking this approach to competing.

Click to shrink...

A lot of us are against bought third party exclusivity, which is what Epic is doing instead of investing in any of the features we discussed in this thread.

They have the money. They are literally backed by the most profitable company in this industry. Their priorities are clear, and yes this is not a thing we usually deal with on the PC side (Discord tried something similar though, and failed pretty spectacularly). That's why you get people claiming they are using "dirty console style tactics", since purchased exclusivity is a more common thing there that a lot of us want to prevent here.

I don't think Steam/Valve are "innocent", but they are a whole lot better than what Epic are trying to do to the platform.

 

[Veidt]

I mean, all roads lead to Steam anyway though? Steamworks was the greatest coup because it gave the illusion of choice without offering any choice. Yet people hated (and probably still hate) the fact that you have to activate games on Uplay even if you buy them on Steam when it's basically the exact same thing.

Click to shrink...

No one is forced to choose between Steam and the competition, nor is Valve demanding exclusive rights to access their ecosystem. The vast majority of developers release their games in multiple platforms and storefronts; they even sell Steam keys through their websites while making 100% of the revenue (minus payment processing and operational costs of course).

If by illusion of choice you mean Valve releasing a great API and set of tools that are continuously supported, which developers are free to use in any way they see fit, then sure. If you mean Valve providing access to a huge ecosystem, seeing consistent growth year over year and being supported by a lot of pro-consumer features (such as refunds and regional pricing), that also checks out. If you mean allowing an entire subset of stores (Humble, GMG, Fanatical, etc) to exist without taking any cut from their revenues, which encourages healthy competition and competitive pricing, that happens to be the case as well.

Seems like people take everything that Valve has done over the years for granted and conveniently ignore all the features introduced, popularized and expanded by Steam. Thankfully they haven't engaged in the monopolistic practices they're accused of; had Valve adopted the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" approach you can be sure the digital landscape would be much, much different nowadays.

As for Uplay, if people hated Uplay as much as you imply, you can bet Ubisoft games wouldn't be selling millions on PC. Those Windows Store releases certainly aren't doing so well.

 

[ThankDougie]

A lot of us are against bought third party exclusivity, which is what Epic is doing instead of investing in any of the features we discussed in this thread.

They have the money. They are literally backed by the most profitable company in this industry. Their priorities are clear, and yes this is not a thing we usually deal with on the PC side. That's why you get people claiming they are using "dirty console style tactics", since purchased exclusivity is a more common thing there that a lot of us want to prevent here.

Click to shrink...

Breaking your post up into bold/italic and standard weight for ease of reference.

As to the first part: I agree investing in features is better than forced exclusivity. But console markets have thrived on forced exclusivity since forever. I hate it, I would like to see it changed, but I can't see how that means "bad for everyone and the industry in general" in Epic's case (looking at the original, that seems to be the argument; if I'm wrong, I guess I have nothing to add).

In fact, Epic's forced exclusivity is less toxic than console exclusivity in many ways because it costs nothing. No investment in new hardware, no investment in new subscriptions. Just sign up.

As to the second part: they are rich as rich comes in the game industry, no doubt. And their priorities are crystal clear: make money so they can keep making money. Totally agree it's a shitty console tactic, but it's not one that's destroyed the industry or been bad for gaming generally. You can find a ton of people talking about how excellent the current generation of games are in general, and that's in a divided market. I understand wanting to prevent that, but console exclusivity is not the same as marketplace exclusivity. And it's not shocking to me Epic isn't investing more money into this, even though they have more money than God. Like any business that is interested in maximizing profits, they're not going to invest in more features until they are forced to. Which is what I think happened with Steam in several cases?

I don't disagree with you in specifics, but I have a hard time coming to the same conclusion where the original posts are concerned.

 

[tuxfool]

Supergiant's last game bombed horrendously on Steam

Click to shrink...

Everywhere.

 

[no1]

Given how obnoxious the PC community was about companies starting their own service, they were essentially a de facto monopoly anyway and basically dared companies to not put their games on Steam.
I remember on the old forum people were shitting on GOG because they didn't want to have games on a "different platform". Sure that's not on Steam, but I'm sure Valve also was happy to let PC fans guard their monopoly for them.

Click to shrink...

Alright now you're putting words into Valves mouth. They've never "bascially" dared people to not put their stuff on steam. People did that regardless of valve.

I mean, all roads lead to Steam anyway though? Steamworks was the greatest coup because it gave the illusion of choice without offering any choice. Yet people hated (and probably still hate) the fact that you have to activate games on Uplay even if you buy them on Steam when it's basically the exact same thing.

Click to shrink...

Yeah but steam works is optional. Uplay games now are automatically activated on your account.

 

[Mifec]

The question is, as a consumer, what is it about the Epic Store that would make you want to come back or "switch over"?

Like, let's say you buy SuperGiant's Hades and you love it. Your new favourite game. Then Hades 2 comes out and it's available on Epic's store and Steam day and date.

Why would you buy the game on Epic's store? What benefit does it have to you as Joe-Hades-fan?

Click to shrink...

After the way Tim Sweeney has been handling this, fucking nothing. Fuck his hypocritical ass.

 

[Instro]

Everywhere.

Click to shrink...

Right. Just speaking in the context of the two stores in question.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

In fact, Epic's forced exclusivity is less toxic than console exclusivity in many ways because it costs nothing. No investment in new hardware, no investment in new subscriptions. Just sign up.
.

Click to shrink...

It costs more in poorer regions due to the lack of regional pricing, with games often being 3-4 times the price than storefronts like Steam in certain regions.

Super Meat Boy Forever has a Linux version, but Linux users can't actually play it because it's now exclusive to a store which doesn't support Linux. Hades might be similar, given Supergiant's history with excellent Linux support. Add a Windows license to the cost there, and the inconvenience of installing a new OS that a lot of us don't want to use at all on top of a launcher we don't want to use.

There are 2 ways that it costs customers, leaving the inferior experience due to massive amounts of missing features aside.

 

[collige]

As to the first part: I agree investing in features is better than forced exclusivity. But console markets have thrived on forced exclusivity since forever. I hate it, I would like to see it changed, but I can't see how that means "bad for everyone and the industry in general" in Epic's case (looking at the original, that seems to be the argument; if I'm wrong, I guess I have nothing to add).

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure the practice of explicitly paying for third party exclusive games only dates back to the PS3/360 gen, before that third parties just gravitated towards the most popular consoles. I might be wrong, but the first instance of a high profile monehatted exclusivity deal was the Capcom 5 for Gamecube and that didn't even happen, so I doubt there was even anything in writing there.

 

[Knurek]

Right. Just speaking in the context of the two stores in question.

Click to shrink...

Was Pyre released on Epic Store?

I'm pretty sure the practice of explicitly paying for third party exclusive games only dates back to the PS3/360 gen, before that third parties just gravitated towards the most popular consoles. I might be wrong, but the first instance of a high profile monehatted exclusivity deal was the Capcom 5 for Gamecube and that didn't even happen, so I doubt there was even anything in writing there.

Click to shrink...

Well, the term moneyhat was invented by Penny Arcade wrt Munch Odyssey being Xbox exclusive.

 

[dsk1210]

What if Epic starts moneyhatting AAA games as well? According to the store developer, Epic is already talking with the big publishers and their games are coming next year.

Don't expect Epic to stop moneyhatting after this first batch. They have loads of money thanks to Tencent and Fortnite.

Click to shrink...

This a big concern especially now that a lot of Japanese developers have moved onto unreal engine 4.

 

[GhostTrick]

The question is, as a consumer, what is it about the Epic Store that would make you want to come back or "switch over"?

Like, let's say you buy SuperGiant's Hades and you love it. Your new favourite game. Then Hades 2 comes out and it's available on Epic's store and Steam day and date.

Why would you buy the game on Epic's store? What benefit does it have to you as Joe-Hades-fan?

Click to shrink...

Honestly ?
Offering a better service in every ways compared to steam.
And if they had a way to integrate my steam library automatically, in a way or another, that'd be the icing in cake.

Otherwise, I'll stay where I am.

 

[dex3108]

It shouldn't if it provides value to the developers. Supergiant's last game bombed horrendously on Steam. Prior to that Transistor was down significantly from Bastion. If a deal with Epic nets them marketing, exposure, more money, etc., then it's absolutely a win for them, and consumers need to learn to live with that or simply not buy.

There's obviously a problem with discovering games on Steam, and we've known for a while that successful indie devs have struggled drawing attention to their second or 3rd games even if their first was a big success. If they can find success signing exclusivity deals then they should do so, as the health of their studio is paramount.

Click to shrink...

Pyre was shown during Sony conferences so they had a lots of eyes on the game. And game still underperformed everywhere. Compare that to Firewatch who had similar treatment who was huge success. So how do you think that their game will do on new and unproven store?

 

[GhostTrick]

Pyre was shown during Sony conferences so they had a lots of eyes on the game. And game still underperformed everywhere. Compare that to Firewatch who had similar treatment who was huge success. So how do you think that their game will do on new and unproven store?

Click to shrink...

That's because indie devs are still using the "shovelwares stealing our visibility" strawman. As I said the reality is different: there are just too many good games.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

That's because indie devs are still using the "shovelwares stealing our visibility" strawman. As I said the reality is different: there are just too many good games.

Click to shrink...

There are a few devs actually doing this, but most are just saying "Steam is so competitive, thousands of games are being released every year it's hard to get noticed", and Youtubers like Jim Sterling are extrapolating that to "asset flips hurting good devs", which is pathetic and not the same thing.

 

[Talus]

That's because indie devs are still using the "shovelwares stealing our visibility" strawman. As I said the reality is different: there are just too many good games.

Click to shrink...

Then you wont mind losing a few.. right?

 

[Wumbo64]

The Epic Store is going to get better, but until it does, I wouldn't suggest using it.

As for the exclusives, I don't blame Epic. The ones making these games agreed to whatever financing or marketing push Epic provided for them. If Epic offered them something so that their games could be produced under more ideal circumstances, I can't really argue. In the early days of the store, they need substantial and unique content to draw in a user base and these independent developers often need a benefactor.

I am also not as eager as some users to defend Valve. Steam support only recently got its act together, Big Picture still has fundamental stability problems for a lot of users (myself included) and the changes to the storefront are arguably confounding for average users.

For my money, GoG is still the most consumer-facing platform. DRM-Free releases, Entirely Optional Client, 30 Day Refund Guarantees, Curated storefront, awesome giveaways, seasonal sales with worthwhile flash discounts, re-releases of classic software that GoG themselves ensure work on modern operating systems, etc...

My interest lies in observing how quickly Epic can shape the store into a something with features equivalent to Steam, but with superior execution. If it never does, they aren't getting a nickle from me.

 

[dex3108]

That's because indie devs are still using the "shovelwares stealing our visibility" strawman. As I said the reality is different: there are just too many good games.

Click to shrink...

It is enough to look at Tizoc 2019 Games Hilight thread and see what's the main issue.

 

[GhostTrick]

Then you wont mind losing a few.. right?

Click to shrink...

Why would I lose them ?
I mean at some point, it's fucking dumb. Why cant you release on BOTH places ?
Releasing on Steam at the same time wont remove the visibility you may have on Epic Store.

 

[The Bookerman]

A lot of us are against bought third party exclusivity, which is what Epic is doing instead of investing in any of the features we discussed in this thread.

They have the money. They are literally backed by the most profitable company in this industry. Their priorities are clear, and yes this is not a thing we usually deal with on the PC side. That's why you get people claiming they are using "dirty console style tactics", since purchased exclusivity is a more common thing there that a lot of us want to prevent here.

Click to shrink...

I agree with your post.
It's a way of grow attention to your store/product that is debatable.
But that type of stuff is not new on the PC side: An exemple: Cuphead. It was exclusive to the Xbox Store for a while until it hit Steam.

 

[Talus]

Why would I lose them ?
I mean at some point, it's fucking dumb. Why cant you release on BOTH places ?
Releasing on Steam at the same time wont remove the visibility you may have on Epic Store.

Click to shrink...

Right... you're not losing them. They are still on the PC platform. Whew..

They are making the choice to work specifically with someone who's going to promote them... and who maybe they think has more of their interest in mind than Valve's "sink or swim" style of just letting people do what they want?

Again, if there's SO many good games and the problem is competition, then there's lots of other games to play and we don't need to worry about what a few developers decide to do. Valve is still there for the little guys.

 

[Ge0force]

This a big concern especially now that a lot of Japanese developers have moved onto unreal engine 4.

Click to shrink...

Not only Japanese games...

https://www.pcgamer.com/world-war-z-is-coming-to-the-epic-store/

 

[GhostTrick]

Right... you're not losing them. They are still on the PC platform. Whew..

They are making the choice to work specifically with someone who's going to promote them... and who maybe they think has more of their interest in mind than Valve's "sink or swim" style of just letting people do what they want?

Again, if there's SO many good games and the problem is competition, then there's lots of other games to play and we don't need to worry about what a few developers decide to do. Valve is still there for the little guys.

Click to shrink...

First, you dont have to be condescending. You dont care about stuff ? Good for you.
I care about my fonctionnalities and I value them as a customer. Why is it that hard to understand ?
Yes, it's on PC. Thanks I got that part. The part you didnt get is that I use a lot of stuff for my convenience and I want to keep that convenience.

They want to take moneyhats ? Good on them. They owe me nothing. I owe them nothing either. Just, you claiming Valve way is "sink or swim" just show a misunderstanding of the whole market. Yes, there are now thousands of legit indie devs. Thousands of upcoming legit good projects. It's something even AA and AAA devs suffers from: The release schedules are crowded.

You think this is because of visibility ? Hell no, it's because people have just so many choices that they'll chose the best to them.

 

[Kvik]

I agree investing in features is better than forced exclusivity. But console markets have thrived on forced exclusivity since forever. I hate it, I would like to see it changed, but I can't see how that means "bad for everyone and the industry in general" in Epic's case (looking at the original, that seems to be the argument; if I'm wrong, I guess I have nothing to add).

In fact, Epic's forced exclusivity is less toxic than console exclusivity in many ways because it costs nothing. No investment in new hardware, no investment in new subscriptions. Just sign up.

Click to shrink...

I think we should get away from console-space mentality when approaching this issue. Forced exclusivity holds no real meaning in open platform such as PC. As you have already stated, walled garden approach makes sense if a platform holder wants to sell their hardware, but we don't have such limitation in PC space. An open platform in this context can only work if anyone have an equal opportunity to develop or purchase content from developers. What Epic has done is the opposite of that. Just because there's no hardware involved, it doesn't mean that their offering is suddenly 1:1 with Steam for both developers and consumers. The lack of community support, API access, free key generation and lack client features alone should alarmed us all that Epic doesn't prioritize their end consumers' need.

But that type of stuff is not new on the PC side: An exemple: Cuphead. It was exclusive to the Xbox Store for a while until it hit Steam.

Click to shrink...

The difference being Microsoft actually covered the marketing cost of their game.

https://www.polygon.com/features/20...rtists-illustrate-five-year-development-cycle

This is not the same case as Epic, as many of the games in their store was previously scheduled to be put on Steam, and then retracted only to be made Epic store exclusive.

 

[GhostTrick]

I agree with your post.
It's a way of grow attention to your store/product that is debatable.
But that type of stuff is not new on the PC side: An exemple: Cuphead. It was exclusive to the Xbox Store for a while until it hit Steam.

Click to shrink...

What ? No. Cuphead released day and date on Steam.

 

[Instro]

Pyre was shown during Sony conferences so they had a lots of eyes on the game. And game still underperformed everywhere. Compare that to Firewatch who had similar treatment who was huge success. So how do you think that their game will do on new and unproven store?

Click to shrink...

The point is that they won't have to worry about it much because they are being subsidized by Epic.

 

[Cooking]

An exemple: Cuphead. It was exclusive to the Xbox Store for a while until it hit Steam.

Click to shrink...

Uh.....no it was not. They released at the same time

 

[Deleted member 1849]

I agree with your post.
It's a way of grow attention to your store/product that is debatable.
But that type of stuff is not new on the PC side: An exemple: Cuphead. It was exclusive to the Xbox Store for a while until it hit Steam.

Click to shrink...

You are right it's not completely new, but you didn't pick a good example. It was on Steam too.


A better example would be the recent Discord store, which was also widely criticized by a lot of us for a lot of the same reasons.

 

[The Bookerman]

What ? No. Cuphead released day and date on Steam.

Click to shrink...

Uh.....no it was not. They released at the same time

Click to shrink...

You are right it's not completely new, but you didn't pick a good example. It was on Steam too.


A better example would be the recent Discord store, which was also widely criticized by a lot of us for a lot of the same reasons.

Click to shrink...

Ehhhh, I was wrong sorry folks, Next time I'll fact check my stuff ;)

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Nice write-ups.

 

[Syril]

Steam is nowhere near as innocent as it's been made out to be since this news came to light.

Click to shrink...

What are Steam's crimes?

 

[Talus]

First, you dont have to be condescending. You dont care about stuff ? Good for you.
I care about my fonctionnalities and I value them as a customer. Why is it that hard to understand ?
Yes, it's on PC. Thanks I got that part. The part you didnt get is that I use a lot of stuff for my convenience and I want to keep that convenience.

They want to take moneyhats ? Good on them. They owe me nothing. I owe them nothing either. Just, you claiming Valve way is "sink or swim" just show a misunderstanding of the whole market. Yes, there are now thousands of legit indie devs. Thousands of upcoming legit good projects. It's something even AA and AAA devs suffers from: The release schedules are crowded.

You think this is because of visibility ? Hell no, it's because people have just so many choices that they'll chose the best to them.

Click to shrink...

I'm not trying to be.. but at some point I feel like people gotta open their minds to stuff they don't agree with sometimes.

I might not completely understand the market. I'm nobody special, and don't have any particular insights into the intricacies of the business on Steam. However, what I can say is that I don't blame developers for trying to improve their own situations.. or to take a stand to try to improve the situation. You call it moneyhatting... because you think they are taking something away from you..I call it a partnership. The only thing I ask of developers is to make great games and reasonable prices for their work, and I'm with them wherever they go. I said it before when this came up months ago.. I want developers that actually release good games to succeed.. if they feel they are having problems or that the platform holder could be doing more, then they'll go elsewhere. Every developer has the right to release a game on an open platform like the PC.. but not every developer deserves to release on every store.

The counter that "these developers would succeed on Steam" isn't true...that's an assumption. It's not guaranteed. Look at Edmund McMillen, Super Meat Boy: 2-5mil. The Binding of Isaac: 2-5mil. The End is Nigh... 100-200k. Nothing is guaranteed. Maybe it would have done better with more exposure..? That's Edmund's fault. But even if it was a guarantee, that doesn't mean that they are bad for not releasing their game there. If it was money and sales, they would release everywhere. Maybe it's more than that? Maybe not? Not my business. My business is continuing to support great games wherever they are (especially on the PC platform)

 

[texhnolyze]

I'm not trying to be.. but at some point I feel like people gotta open their minds to stuff they don't agree with sometimes.

I might not completely understand the market. I'm nobody special, and don't have any particular insights into the intricacies of the business on Steam. However, what I can say is that I don't blame developers for trying to improve their own situations.. or to take a stand to try to improve the situation. You call it moneyhatting... I call it a partnership. The only thing I ask of developers is to make great games and reasonable prices for their work, and I'm with them wherever they go. I said it before when this came up months ago.. I want developers that actually release good games to succeed.. if they feel they are having problems or that the platform holder could be doing more, then they'll go elsewhere.

The counter that "these developers would succeed on Steam" isn't true...that's an assumption. It's not guaranteed. Look at Edmund McMillen.. Super Meat Boy: 2-5mil. The Binding of Isaac: 2-5mil. The End is Nigh... 100-200k. Nothing is guaranteed. Maybe it would have done better with more exposure..? That's Edmund's fault. But even if it was a guarantee, that doesn't mean that they are bad for not releasing their game there. If it was money and sales, they would release everywhere. Maybe it's more than that? Maybe not? Not my business. My business is continuing to support great games wherever they are (especially on the PC platform)

Click to shrink...

Is there a guarantee that these developers would succeed on Epic Store?

Yes, the have massive Fortnite audience, but they're not the type to buy games. They're losing 90 million monthly active users from Steam.

 

[tuxfool]

Is there a guarantee that these developers would succeed on Epic Store?

Yes, the have massive Fortnite audience, but they're not the type to buy games. They're losing 90 million monthly active users from Steam.

Click to shrink...

How many active PC Fortnite's players are there?

 

[Talus]

Is there a guarantee that these developers would succeed on Epic Store?

Yes, the have massive Fortnite audience, but they're not the type to buy games. They're losing 90 million monthly active users from Steam.

Click to shrink...

Maybe they don't need a guarantee? Maybe they want to work with someone who makes them feel like a partner and not just a pebble in the pond? That might mean more to developers than immediate success. Epic is likely lowering the risk.. so they are working with them on it.

Also, I'd just like to say that myself personally.. am taking any developers word on here with a grain of salt. Because I don't know them at all... they may smile nice for the camera, but who knows if they just aren't "against" this because Epic hasn't shown interest in working with them?

I mean, it sounds rude right? But it's easy to get good exposure from this stuff by commenting on it, and building that goodwill.. when you're not in the position to benefit from what Epic is doing.. right?

Just a thought.. All developers are living completely different situations.. who the hell am I to judge them? Either I buy their games or I don't. That's where the relationship stands, for the most part.

 

[texhnolyze]

How many active PC Fortnite's players are there?

Click to shrink...

Yes, and that. Maybe millions but still a fraction of console and mobile players.

Maybe they don't need a guarantee? Maybe they want to work with someone who makes them feel like a partner and not just a pebble in the pond. That means something to developers you know?

Also, I'd just like to say that myself personally.. am taking any developers word on here with a grain of salt. Because I don't know them at all... they may smile nice for the camera, but who knows if they just aren't "against" this because Epic hasn't shown interest in working with them?

I mean, it sounds rude right? But it's easy to get good exposure from this stuff by commenting on it, and building that goodwill.. when you're not in the position to benefit from what Epic is doing.. right?

Just a thought.. All developers are living completely different situations.. who the hell am I to judge them? Either I buy their games or I don't. That's where the relationship stands, for the most part.

Click to shrink...

You're right. Who are we to judge them?

But here's the thing, the majority, if not all, of people here are consumers. It's only natural if we see this whole thing about Epic Store thing from consumers perspective. You care for indie devs? Good, that's a noble stance to have. But in my opinion, the best way to support them from consumers point of view is to buy their games.

 

[LegendofLex]

It feels like most of the article boils down to a new market entrant not having the advantages of an incumbent with massive preexisting market share, and therefore having to make business decisions/deals the incumbent can't or won't in order to accrue minor wins and build market share.

Which is...typical?

 

[signal]

Percentages discussion in the article without Itch, smh.

 

[VinFTW]

So is Tim Sweeney a huge hypocrite? Isn't this what he was advocating against for YEARS?

 

[Deleted member 1849]

So is Tim Sweeney a huge hypocrite? Isn't this what he was advocating against for YEARS?

Click to shrink...

Yes. Yes he is.

Percentages discussion in the article without Itch, smh.

Click to shrink...

I've made sure to cover that in these threads at least!

 

[Mifec]

So is Tim Sweeney a huge hypocrite? Isn't this what he was advocating against for YEARS?

Click to shrink...

Yes, him being a hypocrite is turning me off the store about as much as 3rd party exclusives are if not more.

 

[Talus]

You're right. Who are we to judge them?

But here's the thing, the majority, if not all, of people here are consumers. It's only natural if we see this whole thing about Epic Store thing from consumers perspective. You care for indie devs? Good, that's a noble stance to have. But in my opinion, the best way to support them from consumers point of view is to buy their games.

Click to shrink...

I really do care. Because honestly, I love the PC platform. I can't relegate myself to just Steam.. or not be open to other stores trying to wrestle business away from Steam. I want devs to do what they think is best for them so they can succeed.. because if they can't.. then PC will stop seeing great games. I look at some of the Japanese games on Steam that I LOVE and get happy when they are announced.. but then I see them not do what I think is reasonable given the market, and I feel that we're gonna lose future games because something just isn't working here. Maybe there's too many great games.. maybe the games aren't as good as I think they are, and there's just not the market there.. but I will not blame devs for doing what they do to change or improve their own situations.. because for me.. it's about the games, not the clients.

Yes Steam is BY FAR the best, and the most open, and I really do love it.. which is unfortunate. I'll always do my business there when given the opportunity. But I do feel that Valve themselves could be handling "more prominent" pubs/devs better, to ensure that they don't run away to do their own thing.

I made a thread on this forum about what Steam could do in the face of all these clients, and how they could maintain their position as front and center of the PC gaming experience. I've thought about things like letting us log into our client accounts and have Steam add those games automatically into the games list. That Playnite does it... why can't Valve do something like that. Give us some Valve published titles from 3rd parties. Build up partnerships with developers so that Steam gets games that no other platform gets. That's perfectly fine competition.. in my eyes anyway.

But I'm told that Valve doesn't need to do any of that. Developers should just want to work with Steam because 90mil users... Something has to give at some point.

 

[Skux]

It feels like most of the article boils down to a new market entrant not having the advantages of an incumbent with massive preexisting market share, and therefore having to make business decisions/deals the incumbent can't or won't in order to accrue minor wins and build market share.

Which is...typical?

Click to shrink...

Yup. Epic is well aware that games sell the platform and has taken the steps they need to get their foot in the door as fast as possible. No one is going to choose Steam over Epic if the only difference is the launcher.

And let's not pretend Epic is the bad guy here. The developers would have had just as much say in accepting whatever (likely lucrative) offer was presented to them.

 

[Talus]

Yes. Yes he is.

Click to shrink...

No he's not. MS potentially forcing developers and consumers to use their store at an OS level is not the same as exclusives on a store on the internet.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I'm not trying to be.. but at some point I feel like people gotta open their minds to stuff they don't agree with sometimes.

I might not completely understand the market. I'm nobody special, and don't have any particular insights into the intricacies of the business on Steam. However, what I can say is that I don't blame developers for trying to improve their own situations.. or to take a stand to try to improve the situation. You call it moneyhatting... because you think they are taking something away from you..I call it a partnership. The only thing I ask of developers is to make great games and reasonable prices for their work, and I'm with them wherever they go. I said it before when this came up months ago.. I want developers that actually release good games to succeed.. if they feel they are having problems or that the platform holder could be doing more, then they'll go elsewhere. Every developer has the right to release a game on an open platform like the PC.. but not every developer deserves to release on every store.

The counter that "these developers would succeed on Steam" isn't true...that's an assumption. It's not guaranteed. Look at Edmund McMillen, Super Meat Boy: 2-5mil. The Binding of Isaac: 2-5mil. The End is Nigh... 100-200k. Nothing is guaranteed. Maybe it would have done better with more exposure..? That's Edmund's fault. But even if it was a guarantee, that doesn't mean that they are bad for not releasing their game there. If it was money and sales, they would release everywhere. Maybe it's more than that? Maybe not? Not my business. My business is continuing to support great games wherever they are (especially on the PC platform)

Click to shrink...

Did you read the article?

 

[Deleted member 176]

The question is, as a consumer, what is it about the Epic Store that would make you want to come back or "switch over"?

Like, let's say you buy SuperGiant's Hades and you love it. Your new favourite game. Then Hades 2 comes out and it's available on Epic's store and Steam day and date.

Why would you buy the game on Epic's store? What benefit does it have to you as Joe-Hades-fan?

Click to shrink...

You only want to open one place and Fortnite is on Epic, plus you get free games. I'm sick of steam too tbh.

 

[Zips]

Both the article and the additional post are excellent. They really do a tremendous job of pointing out why it's an issue for developers, especially those that weren't deemed important enough to throw large sums of cash at, and why it's an issue for consumers.

There's a lot of "fuck you, got mine" from some publishers that were picked up by Epic and it's honestly disgusting.