It was around 7k iirc and that can probably be attributed to them developing GOG Galaxy 2,0
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Says Only Exclusive Deals Can Combat Steam (see staff post for discussion guidelines)
- Thread starter RevengeTaken
- Start date
It was around 7k iirc and that can probably be attributed to them developing GOG Galaxy 2,0
I guess it technically "sorta" happened. Epic paid for exclusivity for a bunch of games, then paid them even more so that he could list the games as cheaper during the Mega sale and try to get more interest.
Yeah I'm sure Shenmue 3 was the deathblow Tim
We are talking about EGS and buying on Steam sale lol
We are talking about EGS and buying on Steam sale lol
Disrupting market at the cost of disrupting userbase for the exclusive games.
But what about the subscription model? (like XGP/Game Pass for PC) that's going to disrupt EGS and other traditional storefronts.
Currently for those who just want to play Metro Exodus, XGP subscription model is disrupting EGS model of disruption of 70/30 split which is inturn disrupting the userbase of the game. That's a lot of disruption.
But what about the subscription model? (like XGP/Game Pass for PC) that's going to disrupt EGS and other traditional storefronts.
Currently for those who just want to play Metro Exodus, XGP subscription model is disrupting EGS model of disruption of 70/30 split which is inturn disrupting the userbase of the game. That's a lot of disruption.
But they won't. Time and time again the gaming journalist prove they are typically more about star-fucking than actual journalism.
It really does seem like Epic has no idea what to do with the EGS outside of buying up exclusives. With the fortnite money Epic should have been able to open a store front that could destroy Steam in terms of features and then added the flood of exclusives to really make some noise. The fact we're still months away from a shopping cart is mind blowning.
I mean he's not wrong that exclusives are probably the only shot he has to compete for steam's market share, but he's moronic or incredibly disingenuous for pretending like consumers in any way benefit
Consumers do not benefit from publishers or devs getting a bigger cut
Consumers do not benefit from Tim Sweeney and epic getting richer
Consumers do not benefit from publishers or devs getting a bigger cut
Consumers do not benefit from Tim Sweeney and epic getting richer
The only thing Sweeney and EGS has accomplished so far with their "buying 3rd party exclusives" strategy is made sure that I'll never ever buy anything in EGS in my life.
If they actually wanted to compete through exclusives then they should've went and made some new games for their store. Y'know, like Valve did back at Steam's launch with HL and HL2 and such.
If they actually wanted to compete through exclusives then they should've went and made some new games for their store. Y'know, like Valve did back at Steam's launch with HL and HL2 and such.
What are you talking about? When was this shithead considered the champion of anything? When he was babling that nonsense about microsoft he was so full of nonsense shit people were telling him he needs to stop talking online cause he makes no sense at all. He was never any hero and no saying applies to anything.
He was a dumb fuck since he started existing in gaming.
I'm going to plagiarize myself from Hacker News:
------
Content platforms always compete on availability of content. Steam did the exact same thing early on with Half Life. Look at what's happening in the streaming video space. Look at console gaming.
Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you—they're making Steam accounts because there's a game on Steam that they want to play.
If Epic's store had better features but the same games, nearly all existing Steam users would still continue to use Steam, because that's where their existing game libraries are. The only way Epic could compete on features alone is if it were possible to migrate Steam purchases to the Epic Store. Since Valve will never let that happen, Epic has to entice users with exclusive games. (I know some people will debate this point, but I believe it very strongly—existing libraries are a very strong incentive against switching, regardless of features.)
And that could be great for everyone—if it caused games to be made that would otherwise never get developed. Consider how much great content the video streaming wars have produced. As annoying as it is to switch between subscriptions, I'd say TV viewers are winning right now.
The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content—they're paying for existing content to be removed from Steam. My great hope is that this will change in time. Original games take several years to develop, so if any are under way, we wouldn't have heard about them yet. In the meantime, we're getting PC ports of Journey and Detroit, so that's pretty neat!
------
Content platforms always compete on availability of content. Steam did the exact same thing early on with Half Life. Look at what's happening in the streaming video space. Look at console gaming.
Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you—they're making Steam accounts because there's a game on Steam that they want to play.
If Epic's store had better features but the same games, nearly all existing Steam users would still continue to use Steam, because that's where their existing game libraries are. The only way Epic could compete on features alone is if it were possible to migrate Steam purchases to the Epic Store. Since Valve will never let that happen, Epic has to entice users with exclusive games. (I know some people will debate this point, but I believe it very strongly—existing libraries are a very strong incentive against switching, regardless of features.)
And that could be great for everyone—if it caused games to be made that would otherwise never get developed. Consider how much great content the video streaming wars have produced. As annoying as it is to switch between subscriptions, I'd say TV viewers are winning right now.
The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content—they're paying for existing content to be removed from Steam. My great hope is that this will change in time. Original games take several years to develop, so if any are under way, we wouldn't have heard about them yet. In the meantime, we're getting PC ports of Journey and Detroit, so that's pretty neat!
They have no regards to consumer's issues,best not to rely on them for anything over than the few reports about game developments.
Random Era user Skyfireblaze says: "Making a better service than Steam and embracing platform-openness can combat Steam!" seriously though, I don't see any reason why Steam needs getting combat.
Why would someone need a launcher to be incentivized to create good content
Good content sells itself and is its own motivation for a business
All a new launcher/streaming platform does is give the creator a greater incentive to now lock their content off behind some exclusive store or pass.
He's right, most current gaming people have grown up with Steam and know and want nothing else. To come in and try to compete you gotta go the exclusive route otherwise no one would even try and those who did would fail misserably.
Meanwhile they obviously need and definately should develop their platform to get more features and stuff people want. I still believe with a more competetive market on PC in the end, is healthy for everyone - Devs, Users, Publishers and platforms.
Meanwhile they obviously need and definately should develop their platform to get more features and stuff people want. I still believe with a more competetive market on PC in the end, is healthy for everyone - Devs, Users, Publishers and platforms.
For the same reason a lot of the most boundary-pushing, creative content in the video game industry is funded by console manufacturers. The Last of Us, Alan Wake, Death Stranding, even Bayonetta 2. They're willing to take more risks if the payoff is supporting a broader platform.
I think he's right. People are so entrenched in the Steam ecosystem that better features (if it were feasibly attainable) also wouldn't bring them over in significant quantities. Heck look at all the work MS did that didn't pay off with XB1, it's the content that brings people over, not the peripheral features. Of course, if you want to have them stay and not move right back after finishing your exclusive, next to the content some peripheral features would be pretty important.
Edit: Wowfunhappy already said it better.
Edit: Wowfunhappy already said it better.
Sweeney should stick to the only thing he can do that helps the world and his image: saving forests.
If he really wants people to like him he should also stop:
a) bullying consumers with exclusive deals and
b) tweeting.
If he really wants people to like him he should also stop:
a) bullying consumers with exclusive deals and
b) tweeting.
He ain't wrong. Exclusives are one of the most important aspects in adding sway to any platform, especially if you're in the business of trying to compete against one that already has a userbase umbilically tied to it.
I'm no rocket surgeon, but that's probably because PC Game Pass is an exclusive deal
He's talking about making deal for exclusive games, not having exclusive services. If Epic had done what Game Pass did we'd see endless, deserved praise for them.
And not just that, any "better" feature that is truly better would just be adopted by steam eventually, so it would render any differentiation moot.
He points out other publishers like EA have run stores for years some with more features, and haven't made a dent in Steam
I think the tactic of "stealing" games from steam might be wrong, but on the whole he's right about exclusives being the only feasible way to compete with steam in the long run.
Hell the only reason they were able to do a store at all is because fortnite is exclusive
A lower cut means games are cheaper to make, which means better games or cheaper games can be made. Ultimately you play games, not steam... I think he's got a point there. Especially if it's true that the 30% cut is higher than the profit (and that's not unbelievable)
I can just ignore every game that goes Epic exclusive. If I can't and the game is available on Gamepass or any other store other than Epic i'll sway. Go fuck yourself sideways Tim Sweeney you fucking c*nt.
Which stores are these because its definitely not Origin
Origin is still missing around 75% of Steam's feature sets and yet still runs like hot ass despite being just about as old.
Not trying to offend anyone, but I seriously don't understand the outrage with all of this. Exclusive deals are standard free market business practices in effect. Consoles have always had exclusive titles and I have not heard anyone calling that anti-consumer. It should be clear at this point that no store is ever going to be able to compete with Steam if they don't use this type of practices. This is exactly how Steam got this big to begin with, when Valve gatekeeped access to Half-Life 2 via Steam.
And yes, the main reason behind all of this is Epic getting a big piece of the digital sales cake, but I don't think is unreasonable to argue that developers will have more benefits when getting sales under EGS and that that is a good thing for them and therefore for their customers.
And yes, the main reason behind all of this is Epic getting a big piece of the digital sales cake, but I don't think is unreasonable to argue that developers will have more benefits when getting sales under EGS and that that is a good thing for them and therefore for their customers.
It really seems like he doesn't understand that consumers were happy with where PC gaming was before EGS. No one was sitting around thinking "I wish someone would come along and take out Steam!" because it has been for the most part a great service.
People are able to shop around for Steam keys for different prices or buy on GOG for DRM free stuff. itch.io can be a great place for small devs (and they get a 100% cut) and Origin and uPlay are decent enough that people will generally be okay buying EA and Ubisoft games from there.
Valve have done a lot for PC gaming and Epic have done sweet fuck all recently other than take away people's choice of where they buy certain games. It is so blatantly obvious that Sweeney is only interested in taking down Steam so he can reap all the profits from PC games. It has nothing to do with benefitting anyone other than Epic and its shareholders.
People are able to shop around for Steam keys for different prices or buy on GOG for DRM free stuff. itch.io can be a great place for small devs (and they get a 100% cut) and Origin and uPlay are decent enough that people will generally be okay buying EA and Ubisoft games from there.
Valve have done a lot for PC gaming and Epic have done sweet fuck all recently other than take away people's choice of where they buy certain games. It is so blatantly obvious that Sweeney is only interested in taking down Steam so he can reap all the profits from PC games. It has nothing to do with benefitting anyone other than Epic and its shareholders.
I slightly misread him, but this is what he said:
The point still stands that features haven't seemed to make a dent
You don't have any knowledge about "gaming" if you think that.
Probably because no one has anywhere near the feature set of steam and no one has even attempted it
I mean to be honest, neither have the exclusives they've kept off of Steam.
Even if EGS was just as good as Steam it would take years to change people's habits so he's right in that regard. problem is it's backfired on him because he's done more damage than good.
Epic should be curating developers in the interest to make good games, not to just have them on their store exclusively. The biggest mistake to me is taking games away that were already planned on coming to Steam.
Epic should be curating developers in the interest to make good games, not to just have them on their store exclusively. The biggest mistake to me is taking games away that were already planned on coming to Steam.
Is there any time line on when these features may arrive? Or are they happy enough with sales to just be lazy with it?
The biggest issue is paying for exclusives to outright deny another storefront from selling a game. No-one on PC will complain about specific publishers making THEIR OWN games available only on their storefronts because that is their right to do so. Stealing third party exclusives is dirty as fuck. How about Epic make more games other than Fortnite and tempt players to the store with their own content. What a novel idea....
Still waiting on communities and demo streaming within the client without an executable on Origin. Those were supposed to come after Battlefield 3 launched. Perhaps one day they'll get an XInput wrapper as well
Remember Bayonetta 2? Shadow of the Tomb Raider? Street Fighter V? That's the problem here.
As for your second point, developers getting more benefits do not benefit customers in any way.
Let's take a game like ARK Survival Evolved which relies heavily on community generated mods. The Steam version has mods (workshop) while the Win10 Version does not support any. Guess which version has a marketshare of 98%. I'd say that the Steam workshop definately plays a role in sale / Steam account numbers because it provides additional content for free.
Same is true when you compare Steam to EGS. One system supports modding and the other doesn't. That makes the choice pretty easy for many players.
Admitting your platform actually sucks and can only compete with Steam by depriving users of the ability to choose Steam is one of the most anti-consumer, disgustingly capitalistic things I've read in a minute.
This is where I'm at as well.
Shame EGS squandered all those Fortnite Bucks completely alienating so many.
They can get stuffed.
Like I said the strategy of "stealing" steam games instead of developing or paying for new games might be wrong because it's backfired a bit.
Doesn't invalidate his larger point.
Also you don't disentrench a major player in an industry like steam overnight.
They probably got the second biggest store in the world off the back of fortnite; it caught them by surprise and they made this move so they went for it while fortnite was still hot.
They probably thought paying for ground up exclusive content would take too long to capitalize on fortnites popularity to build up the store, so stealing steam games was the fastest way to build up the library.
They did, it's called fortnite. Let's not kid ourselves that the entire user acquisition strategy for EGS is "Fortnite is really popular."
My usual take on EGS:
I think they are having it rough right now. Next consoles releasing next year, MS going full force (and consumer friendly) on PC with game pass and their heavy hitters on Steam, Fornite starting to make less money, Valve just released Underlords with 200k concurrents players in a few days and Epic couldnt secure any big title on E3 (Shenmue 3 is a niche game) so they bet are BL3 and Ubisoft (which games can be bought on their store...)...so what do they have? AA games and some indies?
Also theres something Tim doesnt get about PC gaming and thats the surprise factor. Out of nowhere steam releases hits noone were expecting even to exist.
EGS could be an option for multiplayer games, but for the rest i think it has no future at all.
No wonder they have to change their strategy recently, things arent working as intented.
I think they are having it rough right now. Next consoles releasing next year, MS going full force (and consumer friendly) on PC with game pass and their heavy hitters on Steam, Fornite starting to make less money, Valve just released Underlords with 200k concurrents players in a few days and Epic couldnt secure any big title on E3 (Shenmue 3 is a niche game) so they bet are BL3 and Ubisoft (which games can be bought on their store...)...so what do they have? AA games and some indies?
Also theres something Tim doesnt get about PC gaming and thats the surprise factor. Out of nowhere steam releases hits noone were expecting even to exist.
EGS could be an option for multiplayer games, but for the rest i think it has no future at all.
No wonder they have to change their strategy recently, things arent working as intented.
It backfired oh him because he does not know when to shut the fuck up. If somebody broke his fingers to stop him from tweeting there would be much less outrage.
Staff Post: Discussion Guidelines (read before posting)
A reminder of our rules in these threads:
Official Staff Communication
Given the volatility in recent Epic Game Store related threads we have decided that some clearer guidelines are required to cultivate healthier discussion.
- Do not enter these threads in bad faith. If we conclude that your goal is to misrepresent the concerns of other users or rile people up, you will be moderated. Intent matters here. Honest questions or commentary about the differences and similarities between the Epic Games Store and other storefronts are fine. Deliberately and dismissively attempting to troll concerned members on those topics is not okay. These discussions must be held in good faith and in a civil manner.
- As a reminder, antagonizing or engaging in personal attacks on other members is still against the rules. We have a large community with a wide range of preferences and personal priorities. Not everyone will feel the same way as you do on any given topic. If you feel a post is breaking a rule please report it and do not respond with hostility. If you choose to engage do so politely. We always check to see which users have a history of trouble in this area.
- It is perfectly acceptable to want to wait for a game to be released on the storefront of your preference (ex: "I'll just wait for the Steam release.") It is not acceptable to troll threads because of storefront exclusivity timed or otherwise (ex: "So the real PC release is going to be a year later.") The latter is needlessly inflammatory and distracts from discussion. We will be scrutinizing these posts more closely going forward.
- Do not advocate, defend, or admit to piracy under any circumstances. This is explicitly against our Terms of Service. There are no justifications that will make this acceptable.
Reposting my comment from another Epic thread:
The thing that irks me the most about all the talk from Sweeney is how disingenuous he is.
He's stated that 12% is not sustainable yet he wants Steam to go down to that when they even have a lot more features they offer developers than the Epic Launcher? Hosting forums and cloud saves and the like for every game (I know not every game has cloud saves) is not without cost.
Saying things like if Steam goes down to 12% we'll stop buying exclusives. He's basically saying if Steam shuts down we'll stop buying exclusives.
It just comes off so dishonest.
The thing that irks me the most about all the talk from Sweeney is how disingenuous he is.
He's stated that 12% is not sustainable yet he wants Steam to go down to that when they even have a lot more features they offer developers than the Epic Launcher? Hosting forums and cloud saves and the like for every game (I know not every game has cloud saves) is not without cost.
Saying things like if Steam goes down to 12% we'll stop buying exclusives. He's basically saying if Steam shuts down we'll stop buying exclusives.
It just comes off so dishonest.