GI: [Anno 1800 leaving Steam] might not bode well for the...strength of Steam's marketplace, it most likely is good for everyone else (See Staff Post)

[Shengar]

It's funny how when people faced with the rebuke how Steam steadily improve over time especially when they reacts against a competition (chat against Discord, stream functionality against Twitch), or just improving things as is (controller APIs) and then have to resort to "I don't used those feature so I don't care".

 

[JLP101]

Epic is not paying for exclusives, they are paying money to keep games off of Steam. Giving the consumer less choice is not good for anybody.

 

[m_dorian]

Epic is not paying for exclusives, they are paying money to keep games off of Steam. Giving the consumer less choice is not good for anybody.

Click to shrink...

Yet many people here fail to acknowledge it.
Less options = bad for consumer interests.

 

[hank_tree]

Hyperbole? I can't buy any game on EGS, so if the devs response "it's just business", then it's just business for me too when I ignore any dev that moves their game to EGS, I'm no charity, I'm a customer, and that 88/12 cut bullshit is irrelevant to me as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that came out of it is that I can't buy Metro or any other moneyhatting EGS games.

Click to shrink...

Actually can't tell if this is a joke post or not.

 

[Shard Shinjuku]

Putting aside the idea, did the author just flatout miss things like Halo MCC being announced for Steam, or Bethseda's little rebellion being ended?

 

[Deleted member 3208]

That it means reaching more players in addition to making more money for development. That doesn't erase or devalue your experience, of course. The sooner Epic can fix its shit, the better for all involved.

Click to shrink...

Please, define what it means to reach more players. Unless you mean the Fortnite players, which, Galyonkin pointed out once with the data he collected from Steamspy, F2P players aren't interested in buying games.

Also, Epic hasn't explained the numbers when posting their Fortnite userbase. How many of them play on PC? We can assume millions, but how many?

 

[Skux]

Good to see gaming journalists getting it a lot more often than people here.

This is exactly the kind of competition that people desire. It forces Valve to step up their game, just like when they brought in refunds because Origin was doing it.

Epic is offering a great deal for developers and publishers. It's no surpise they're choosing these exclusivity deals.

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

 

[EloKa]

Good to see gaming journalists getting it a lot more often than people here.

Click to shrink...

Maybe because we don't get paid to release positive EGS news?

This is exactly the kind of competition that people desire.

Click to shrink...

That's obviously either just wrong or a lie.

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

Click to shrink...

Hopefully not but Valve would take the same backlash if they attempt to copy the anti-consumer strategies as well.

 

[Nabs]

Good to see gaming journalists getting it a lot more often than people here.

This is exactly the kind of competition that people desire. It forces Valve to step up their game, just like when they brought in refunds because Origin was doing it.

Epic is offering a great deal for developers and publishers. It's no surpise they're choosing these exclusivity deals.

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

Click to shrink...

They didn't bring refunds because Origin did it. You guys have to stop with these lies. Origin provides refunds for EA published games. Guess what, Valve always allowed for refunds on Valve published games.

We don't want Valve to secure exclusives unless they're helping in development or funding. We want games everywhere (Steam/GOG/Humble/3rd party retailers). That benefits gamers the most.

 

[Swenhir]

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

Click to shrink...

So to you this is what this is all about? Developers wanting Steam to pay them for the privilege of selling their games?

You would support some publishers and developers in starting a bidding war that aims at sucking the funds out of every storefront and that will kill every small one that was able exist on PC thanks to its openness until now, just for the sake of a paycheck for a few bad actors? You would support a store that has proven itself utterly untrustworthy over one that has historically done right by the platform? All that for the sake of them trying to siphon as much money as they can out of everyone without having to make a single sale and who cares if it torches the platform and takes it back decades?

And they call us entitled.

 

[MJnR]

Good to see gaming journalists getting it a lot more often than people here.

This is exactly the kind of competition that people desire. It forces Valve to step up their game, just like when they brought in refunds because Origin was doing it.

Epic is offering a great deal for developers and publishers. It's no surpise they're choosing these exclusivity deals.

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

Click to shrink...

Yes, it will be very interesting to see many 3rd party stores struggling to keep up and smaller storefronts like GOG and itch.io completely breaking down because EGS brought this exclusivity war bullshit over to PC.

 

[Demacabre]

So to you this is what this is all about? Developers wanting Steam to pay them for the privilege of selling their games?

You would support some publishers and developers in starting a bidding war that aims at sucking the funds out of every storefront and that will kill every small one that was able exist on PC thanks to its openness until now, just for the sake of a paycheck for a few bad actors? You would support a store that has proven itself utterly untrustworthy over one that has historically done right by the platform? All that for the sake of them trying to siphon as much money as they can out of everyone without having to make a single sale and who cares if it torches the platform and takes it back decades?

And they call us entitled.

Click to shrink...

Welcome to Epic Game Store discussion threads. Where rampant, all-or-nothing capitalism with backroom exclusivity deals and less consumer features are not only tolerated on Era, but admired and fawned over.

 

[Yukinari]

Epic is not paying for exclusives, they are paying money to keep games off of Steam. Giving the consumer less choice is not good for anybody.

Click to shrink...

On any discord i discuss this topic with it theres no nuance and a lot of people think the word "anti-consumer" isnt applicable to what Epic is doing when it definitely is.

PC gaming is basically fucked if we allow Epic to have their way.

 

[Genryu]

The only people who want the type of competition that EGS is bringing to the PC are developers and publishers, because it means storefronts have a bidding war to sell their games.

 

[Yunyo]

The only people who want the type of competition that EGS is bringing to the PC are developers and publishers, because it means storefronts have a bidding war to sell their games.

Click to shrink...

Yep. They would like nothing more than Valve to open up their checkbook and treat them like special kings.

Now all they have to do is sell us a false narrative; that these decisions are good for us too. Apparently through as much gaslighting as possible lol.

 

[Armaros]

Yep. They would like nothing more than Valve to open up their checkbook and treat them like special kings.

Now all they have to do is sell us a false narrative; that these decisions are good for us too. Apparently through as much gaslighting as possible lol.

Click to shrink...

The fastest way to the next video game industry collapse is if people start making games to get bought out by stores in exclusivity wars and not actually because they thought their game is good.

 

[Csr]

So basically some people are advocating anti consumer practises even though it is very possible that this situation will cause even more anti consumer practises while also ignoring that Steam has been improving a lot even before Epic appeared.

For most pc gamers this is only causing inconvenience, worse prices and for some even locking them out of games completely.
Some publishers will benefit in the short term and thats it.

Epic should have tried to get games that wouldn't have been ported to pc or that wouldn't exist without outside funding.

 

[Deleted member 19813]

All these devs will eventually crawl back to Steam so people will purchase their games, honestly.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

Yes, it will be very interesting to see many 3rd party stores struggling to keep up and smaller storefronts like GOG and itch.io completely breaking down because EGS brought this exclusivity war bullshit over to PC.

Click to shrink...

Unless Epic will specifically go for making niche indie games or re-releases of old games exclusive to their store, pretty sure itch.io and GOG won't really be affected by this. Stores that only really sell keys that can be used on other stores that Epic won't support probably will be, but GOG and itch are more into selling stuff neither Steam and EGS really cover all that well. (old games and indie games respectively) If they completely break down, it probably won't be cause Epic decided to compete, not when what they're selling on their store is mainly AAA games and (mostly) high profile indie games.

Anyway, I can get where the article is coming from. There are areas where Steam definitely needs to improve, but not really with the features for consumers. The areas are more with stuff publishers and developers have frustrations with, and those are things Epic is addressing. I could see Steam having a better revenue cut for publishers/developers, or put more work into making sure stuff like review bombs don't happen, or making sure their store isn't in the news every other month for having some gross bigoted trash on it. Maybe they'll even make it so their algorithms don't just recommend games that are already incredibly successful. Which in turn would be good for consumers as well.

There are things that Valve really, really needs to do a better job improving. That being said, I don't know if those are things that Steam will necessarily improve when Epic's big main appealing thing to developers seems to be "we'll give you a bunch of money if you make your game exclusive to our store". I also don't really see potential big competitors competing against Steam in any other way though, it's incredibly difficult to compete against them when it comes to features meant for consumers. Valve has been improving their store mainly in that aspect, and also have built an incredibly large community that will stan for them, for the past decade and a half now.

For a game launcher to get a large userbase that can compete with Steam, it'd either need features that are so incredibly appealing that they put Steam's to shame (which Valve has had a 15 year head start on now), or they'd have to be the only option to play popular games on. Guess which is way easier and way more likely for any competitor to do.

 

[Endaeias]

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (as well as I probably should): I don't see anything directly wrong with what Epic Games is doing at this time. Let me explain myself before the pitchforks come out and the arrows start flying. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious issues with the EGS. I'll break down my thoughts/opinions as of now:

1. Feature Disparity:
   1. It's obvious that Epic Games wasn't prepared to announce that they were "competing" with Valve (Steam). Feature-wise, the EGS lacks some of the core features that consumers expect out of a launcher (let alone one that would be in "direct competition" with Steam). The list here is tremendous: from cloud saves (yes, I know it's on the roadmap) to improvements to library management, from Store search improvements to even a shopping cart.
   2. Keeping track of everything that they've done, I am under the assumption that Sweeney and the Board of Directors decided this was the business decision that they were going to make for 2019. With the revenue stream coming from Fortnite, Epic Games has the funds to disrupt the market and "compete" against Valve. The issue here is that, as a product, the Epic Game Store isn't exactly ready for "prime time." Sweeney has made comments to suggest that he is attempting to seek the "moral high ground" by the 12/88 split route. This is an easy method of pulling publishers to the EGS - but not consumers. Feature disparity is a major issue when going up against a long-standing competitor that has the support of the community.
   3. Even looking at their roadmap (here), I get the impression that their near term features are primarily focused on the publisher-experience versus the User Experience (there are some user experience enhancements but they also improve the experience of the publisher - so I would argue those are moot/cancel one another out).
2. "The Split"
   1. Okay, this does not take a genius and it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread alone: the 12/88 split isn't a sustainable split. Given that Epic Games has a substantial backing from investors (not including the 43% ownership from Tencent), on top of the revenue stream they've had from Fortnite (despite Epic knowing that it isn't going to last forever), they can take a loss for a year or two before there's an obvious business need to change the dynamic.
   2. As EGS expands onto the international platform (if they choose to go this route at all), they are going to have to take a hard look at the associated costs with said expansion. While they may be comfortable putting additional fees in front of the consumer, this isn't going to be a sound market strategy in the long-term. This gives the impression that they are either: a) not planning on being as global/international as Steam/Valve or b) they are simply trying to disrupt the market.
3. Exclusives
   1. Most of the complaints here about exclusives have been the same core question: "How does limiting my options as a consumer help me in any way, shape, or form?" - Rather than beating around the bush, the answer is the that everyone else on this forum knows: it does not.
   2. However, in order for Epic Game to address the feature disparity while still trying to disrupt the market -- exclusives are all that they have at this point and time. This is a business decision that they decided to go with in order to penetrate the PC Gaming market. They are addressing the PC gaming market in a similar fashion as the console one: exclusives drive sales. You're not going to be able to address the feature disparity without long-term development so the next best solution is to simply force consumers to their product/platform.
   3. It isn't a strong go-to strategy even though they're basically capitalizing on the user-base that their launcher grew from Fortnite players. People are purchasing games on the Epic Game Store; much to the chagrin of many gamers on forums, social media, and Reddit.
4. "Chinese Spyware"
   1. Okay, let's nip this one in the bud. The Epic Games Store, at this point, is no more spyware than Steam, uPlay, or Origin. As of version 9.10.2 - they've started using the Steamworks API versus the hack implementation of reading the localconfig.vdf file (Steam's userdata file).
   2. In regard to the tracking cookie, most launchers/storefronts use this if they're using Windows API or leveraging some type of native client SDK/API to render their stores and track information about navigation/feature usage/etc. This isn't a popular statement because it isn't the reality that people want to hear. Getting system information or browsing habits allow for aggregation of data to make projections regarding what features are being used, what games are being searched (in and outside of the storefront), and user behavior as a whole (to improve the product, in many cases).
   3. The whole "Tencent" argument is pretty lofty, at best. If there comes a time where it's obvious that Epic Games is sending user/behavior/web browing data to Tencent, that's on me. But as it stands, a company with 40% ownership still isn't going to convince a company to stab themselves in the foot that badly (especially when they do so well on their own).
5. Competition
   1. Competition is healthy. Personally (and I mean this strictly of my own opinion), I want a full competitor to Steam/Valve. I don't mean that I want Steam key resellers - that's not a competition of Steam, but the competition of Steam's Storefront. You have to separate the two. Valve is okay with allowing Storefront competitors to sell keys to their platform because it still creates user engagement with their platform as a whole. I want a competitor to Steam's Launcher/Library Collection. uPlay has become a strong one (feature-wise), compared to others on the market. I have zero problems with Epic Games throwing their hat in the ring.
   2. Epic Games isn't going about this in an intelligent or careful manner. Rather than "buckling under consumer pressure" (e.g., their partnership with Humble Bundle that was announced recently), they should be focusing on the users/consumers themselves. The self-proclaimed moral high-ground isn't good enough. If you want to compete directly with Valve's platform (Storefront and Launcher) you have to bridge the feature gaps AND earn the trust of the consumers. The Fortnite user-boom isn't going to keep user engagement going forever.
   3. Exclusives aren't really consumer-friendly when you think about it. It's the company trying to force consumers to embrace a new platform to compete against the "old hat" that has been sitting in the ring rather complacently. I cannot fault the people working on the Epic Games Store, but the higher-ups that have enforced this type of "competition." Epic is less likely throwing cash in front of publishers/developers as much as they're throwing promises at them ("We'll take the costs of Creators for the first year." or "We can promise that you will sell X amount of copies on the Epic Games Store or else we'll reimburse you..." -- except in the cases where the dev/publisher needed the Kickstarter backer money up front to avoid any direct budgeting concerns by announcing the exclusivity of their game/s).

Even though it's too late, I would say that the best chance that the Epic Games Store had to be in direct competition with Steam (as a platform) would be to have bridged the feature disparity as much as possible (sans any Linux/Mac and Steam Link-like features - these are a niche market and would not necessarily play to their advantage in terms of costs of development to user engagement for these features) and announced "competition" afterwards. They could have avoided the "anti-consumer exclusive" approach to penetrate the market as it would have been easier to compare the two from a consumer/user's perspective.

Going forward, Epic Games needs to chill on the "exclusives" front for a few months while they start working on improving their Storefront AND their Platform. I know a lot of people are in the mindset that "Steam GOOD, Epic BAD" because of the current direction and I can't necessarily blame those people. Epic Games has given us absolutely zero reasons to trust them. Admittedly, when I started using Steam in 2004 - I didn't trust Valve whatsoever, either. I look at the EGS as "2004 Steam but in 2019." There is plenty room for improvement, in both software and business approach.

At the same time, I am willing to give business to the Epic Games Store in hopes that it becomes a full-fledged platform that can compete with Steam/Valve (even if it's just on the domestic level of the United States). I know that's not a popular opinion. Currently, I use pretty much every launcher there is on the market. I have Origin Premier, uPlay has 15-20 games, GOG is sitting at around 200+ games, Steam is sitting at 400+ games, and I have almost 30 on the EGS [with two pre-orders].

 

[Conkerkid11]

Unless Epic will specifically go for making niche indie games or re-releases of old games exclusive to their store, pretty sure itch.io and GOG won't really be affected by this. Stores that only really sell keys that can be used on other stores that Epic won't support probably will be, but GOG and itch are more into selling stuff neither Steam and EGS really cover all that well. (old games and indie games respectively) If they completely break down, it probably won't be cause Epic decided to compete, not when what they're selling on their store is mainly AAA games and (mostly) high profile indie games.

Anyway, I can get where the article is coming from. There are areas where Steam definitely needs to improve, but not really with the features for consumers. The areas are more with stuff publishers and developers have frustrations with, and those are things Epic is addressing. I could see Steam having a better revenue cut for publishers/developers, or put more work into making sure stuff like review bombs don't happen, or making sure their store isn't in the news every other month for having some gross bigoted trash on it. Maybe they'll even make it so their algorithms don't just recommend games that are already incredibly successful. Which in turn would be good for consumers as well.

There are things that Valve really, really needs to do a better job improving. That being said, I don't know if those are things that Steam will necessarily improve when Epic's big main appealing thing to developers seems to be "we'll give you a bunch of money if you make your game exclusive to our store". I also don't really see potential big competitors competing against Steam in any other way though, it's incredibly difficult to compete against them when it comes to features meant for consumers. Valve has been improving their store mainly in that aspect, and also have built an incredibly large community that will stan for them, for the past decade and a half now.

For a game launcher to get a large userbase that can compete with Steam, it'd either need features that are so incredibly appealing that they put Steam's to shame (which Valve has had a 15 year head start on now), or they'd have to be the only option to play popular games on. Guess which is way easier and way more likely for any competitor to do.

Click to shrink...

Why would Steam offer a cut different from what every other retailer but EGS offers? How would that prevent Epic from moneyhatting games? These devs aren't going to Epic because of the different cut. They're going because Epic's giving them a shit ton of money.

Also, how are review bombs a problem? If a game gets heavily review bombed, it generally deserves it. You'll probably bring up that recent Chinese horror game that got review bombed, but the review bomb wasn't even all that heavy. Most of the publicity the game got was positive.

The last game that "made the news" was Rape Day, and it was never for sale.

Also, how does their algorithm only recommend games that are already incredibly successful? How did those games become incredibly successful in the first place? How did the first Risk of Rain and its sequel become so successful? How are so many recent indie games so successful? How is Epic doing a better job of this? Their store has so few games in it at the moment, and only recently got a search bar.

Your third paragraph basically makes your second paragraph obsolete. Nobody can see where the author of this article is coming from, because for some odd reason, none of the gaming journalists are criticizing Epic.

I don't understand why Epic has to compete with Steam. At the moment, they're bleeding money. They're paying publishers a ton of money for exclusives that don't sell all that well. They're paying publishers for free games. They're adding in basic features at a snail's pace. Why bother? Why not be like Ubisoft and EA and just allow third-parties to sell their games on your platform if they want to? What's the end game here? Do they eventually stop paying for exclusives? Who's gonna remain loyal to them after that? Will they have Steam's features by then?

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (as well as I probably should): I don't see anything directly wrong with what Epic Games is doing at this time. Let me explain myself before the pitchforks come out and the arrows start flying. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious issues with the EGS. I'll break down my thoughts/opinions as of now:

1. Feature Disparity:
   1. It's obvious that Epic Games wasn't prepared to announce that they were "competing" with Valve (Steam). Feature-wise, the EGS lacks some of the core features that consumers expect out of a launcher (let alone one that would be in "direct competition" with Steam). The list here is tremendous: from cloud saves (yes, I know it's on the roadmap) to improvements to library management, from Store search improvements to even a shopping cart.
   2. Keeping track of everything that they've done, I am under the assumption that Sweeney and the Board of Directors decided this was the business decision that they were going to make for 2019. With the revenue stream coming from Fortnite, Epic Games has the funds to disrupt the market and "compete" against Valve. The issue here is that, as a product, the Epic Game Store isn't exactly ready for "prime time." Sweeney has made comments to suggest that he is attempting to seek the "moral high ground" by the 12/88 split route. This is an easy method of pulling publishers to the EGS - but not consumers. Feature disparity is a major issue when going up against a long-standing competitor that has the support of the community.
   3. Even looking at their roadmap (here), I get the impression that their near term features are primarily focused on the publisher-experience versus the User Experience (there are some user experience enhancements but they also improve the experience of the publisher - so I would argue those are moot/cancel one another out).
2. "The Split"
   1. Okay, this does not take a genius and it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread alone: the 12/88 split isn't a sustainable split. Given that Epic Games has a substantial backing from investors (not including the 43% ownership from Tencent), on top of the revenue stream they've had from Fortnite (despite Epic knowing that it isn't going to last forever), they can take a loss for a year or two before there's an obvious business need to change the dynamic.
   2. As EGS expands onto the international platform (if they choose to go this route at all), they are going to have to take a hard look at the associated costs with said expansion. While they may be comfortable putting additional fees in front of the consumer, this isn't going to be a sound market strategy in the long-term. This gives the impression that they are either: a) not planning on being as global/international as Steam/Valve or b) they are simply trying to disrupt the market.
3. Exclusives
   1. Most of the complaints here about exclusives have been the same core question: "How does limiting my options as a consumer help me in any way, shape, or form?" - Rather than beating around the bush, the answer is the that everyone else on this forum knows: it does not.
   2. However, in order for Epic Game to address the feature disparity while still trying to disrupt the market -- exclusives are all that they have at this point and time. This is a business decision that they decided to go with in order to penetrate the PC Gaming market. They are addressing the PC gaming market in a similar fashion as the console one: exclusives drive sales. You're not going to be able to address the feature disparity without long-term development so the next best solution is to simply force consumers to their product/platform.
   3. It isn't a strong go-to strategy even though they're basically capitalizing on the user-base that their launcher grew from Fortnite players. People are purchasing games on the Epic Game Store; much to the chagrin of many gamers on forums, social media, and Reddit.
4. "Chinese Spyware"
   1. Okay, let's nip this one in the bud. The Epic Games Store, at this point, is no more spyware than Steam, uPlay, or Origin. As of version 9.10.2 - they've started using the Steamworks API versus the hack implementation of reading the localconfig.vdf file (Steam's userdata file).
   2. In regard to the tracking cookie, most launchers/storefronts use this if they're using Windows API or leveraging some type of native client SDK/API to render their stores and track information about navigation/feature usage/etc. This isn't a popular statement because it isn't the reality that people want to hear. Getting system information or browsing habits allow for aggregation of data to make projections regarding what features are being used, what games are being searched (in and outside of the storefront), and user behavior as a whole (to improve the product, in many cases).
   3. The whole "Tencent" argument is pretty lofty, at best. If there comes a time where it's obvious that Epic Games is sending user/behavior/web browing data to Tencent, that's on me. But as it stands, a company with 40% ownership still isn't going to convince a company to stab themselves in the foot that badly (especially when they do so well on their own).
5. Competition
   1. Competition is healthy. Personally (and I mean this strictly of my own opinion), I want a full competitor to Steam/Valve. I don't mean that I want Steam key resellers - that's not a competition of Steam, but the competition of Steam's Storefront. You have to separate the two. Valve is okay with allowing Storefront competitors to sell keys to their platform because it still creates user engagement with their platform as a whole. I want a competitor to Steam's Launcher/Library Collection. uPlay has become a strong one (feature-wise), compared to others on the market. I have zero problems with Epic Games throwing their hat in the ring.
   2. Epic Games isn't going about this in an intelligent or careful manner. Rather than "buckling under consumer pressure" (e.g., their partnership with Humble Bundle that was announced recently), they should be focusing on the users/consumers themselves. The self-proclaimed moral high-ground isn't good enough. If you want to compete directly with Valve's platform (Storefront and Launcher) you have to bridge the feature gaps AND earn the trust of the consumers. The Fortnite user-boom isn't going to keep user engagement going forever.
   3. Exclusives aren't really consumer-friendly when you think about it. It's the company trying to force consumers to embrace a new platform to compete against the "old hat" that has been sitting in the ring rather complacently. I cannot fault the people working on the Epic Games Store, but the higher-ups that have enforced this type of "competition." Epic is less likely throwing cash in front of publishers/developers as much as they're throwing promises at them ("We'll take the costs of Creators for the first year." or "We can promise that you will sell X amount of copies on the Epic Games Store or else we'll reimburse you..." -- except in the cases where the dev/publisher needed the Kickstarter backer money up front to avoid any direct budgeting concerns by announcing the exclusivity of their game/s).

Even though it's too late, I would say that the best chance that the Epic Games Store had to be in direct competition with Steam (as a platform) would be to have bridged the feature disparity as much as possible (sans any Linux/Mac and Steam Link-like features - these are a niche market and would not necessarily play to their advantage in terms of costs of development to user engagement for these features) and announced "competition" afterwards. They could have avoided the "anti-consumer exclusive" approach to penetrate the market as it would have been easier to compare the two from a consumer/user's perspective.

Going forward, Epic Games needs to chill on the "exclusives" front for a few months while they start working on improving their Storefront AND their Platform. I know a lot of people are in the mindset that "Steam GOOD, Epic BAD" because of the current direction and I can't necessarily blame those people. Epic Games has given us absolutely zero reasons to trust them. Admittedly, when I started using Steam in 2004 - I didn't trust Valve whatsoever, either. I look at the EGS as "2004 Steam but in 2019." There is plenty room for improvement, in both software and business approach.

At the same time, I am willing to give business to the Epic Games Store in hopes that it becomes a full-fledged platform that can compete with Steam/Valve (even if it's just on the domestic level of the United States). I know that's not a popular opinion. Currently, I use pretty much every launcher there is on the market. I have Origin Premier, uPlay has 15-20 games, GOG is sitting at around 200+ games, Steam is sitting at 400+ games, and I have almost 30 on the EGS [with two pre-orders].

Click to shrink...

You basically just said what everybody else has been saying though. Epic released an unfinished product, and rather than admitting that and just updating that product, they're paying off publishers for timed exclusives.

The problem with an article like this is that it's not criticizing Epic for these things. Instead, it's criticizing Valve for not doing the same thing and also moneyhatting games.

 

[Swenhir]

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (as well as I probably should): I don't see anything directly wrong with what Epic Games is doing at this time. Let me explain myself before the pitchforks come out and the arrows start flying. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious issues with the EGS. I'll break down my thoughts/opinions as of now:

1. Feature Disparity:
   1. It's obvious that Epic Games wasn't prepared to announce that they were "competing" with Valve (Steam). Feature-wise, the EGS lacks some of the core features that consumers expect out of a launcher (let alone one that would be in "direct competition" with Steam). The list here is tremendous: from cloud saves (yes, I know it's on the roadmap) to improvements to library management, from Store search improvements to even a shopping cart.
   2. Keeping track of everything that they've done, I am under the assumption that Sweeney and the Board of Directors decided this was the business decision that they were going to make for 2019. With the revenue stream coming from Fortnite, Epic Games has the funds to disrupt the market and "compete" against Valve. The issue here is that, as a product, the Epic Game Store isn't exactly ready for "prime time." Sweeney has made comments to suggest that he is attempting to seek the "moral high ground" by the 12/88 split route. This is an easy method of pulling publishers to the EGS - but not consumers. Feature disparity is a major issue when going up against a long-standing competitor that has the support of the community.
   3. Even looking at their roadmap (here), I get the impression that their near term features are primarily focused on the publisher-experience versus the User Experience (there are some user experience enhancements but they also improve the experience of the publisher - so I would argue those are moot/cancel one another out).
2. "The Split"
   1. Okay, this does not take a genius and it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread alone: the 12/88 split isn't a sustainable split. Given that Epic Games has a substantial backing from investors (not including the 43% ownership from Tencent), on top of the revenue stream they've had from Fortnite (despite Epic knowing that it isn't going to last forever), they can take a loss for a year or two before there's an obvious business need to change the dynamic.
   2. As EGS expands onto the international platform (if they choose to go this route at all), they are going to have to take a hard look at the associated costs with said expansion. While they may be comfortable putting additional fees in front of the consumer, this isn't going to be a sound market strategy in the long-term. This gives the impression that they are either: a) not planning on being as global/international as Steam/Valve or b) they are simply trying to disrupt the market.
3. Exclusives
   1. Most of the complaints here about exclusives have been the same core question: "How does limiting my options as a consumer help me in any way, shape, or form?" - Rather than beating around the bush, the answer is the that everyone else on this forum knows: it does not.
   2. However, in order for Epic Game to address the feature disparity while still trying to disrupt the market -- exclusives are all that they have at this point and time. This is a business decision that they decided to go with in order to penetrate the PC Gaming market. They are addressing the PC gaming market in a similar fashion as the console one: exclusives drive sales. You're not going to be able to address the feature disparity without long-term development so the next best solution is to simply force consumers to their product/platform.
   3. It isn't a strong go-to strategy even though they're basically capitalizing on the user-base that their launcher grew from Fortnite players. People are purchasing games on the Epic Game Store; much to the chagrin of many gamers on forums, social media, and Reddit.
4. "Chinese Spyware"
   1. Okay, let's nip this one in the bud. The Epic Games Store, at this point, is no more spyware than Steam, uPlay, or Origin. As of version 9.10.2 - they've started using the Steamworks API versus the hack implementation of reading the localconfig.vdf file (Steam's userdata file).
   2. In regard to the tracking cookie, most launchers/storefronts use this if they're using Windows API or leveraging some type of native client SDK/API to render their stores and track information about navigation/feature usage/etc. This isn't a popular statement because it isn't the reality that people want to hear. Getting system information or browsing habits allow for aggregation of data to make projections regarding what features are being used, what games are being searched (in and outside of the storefront), and user behavior as a whole (to improve the product, in many cases).
   3. The whole "Tencent" argument is pretty lofty, at best. If there comes a time where it's obvious that Epic Games is sending user/behavior/web browing data to Tencent, that's on me. But as it stands, a company with 40% ownership still isn't going to convince a company to stab themselves in the foot that badly (especially when they do so well on their own).
5. Competition
   1. Competition is healthy. Personally (and I mean this strictly of my own opinion), I want a full competitor to Steam/Valve. I don't mean that I want Steam key resellers - that's not a competition of Steam, but the competition of Steam's Storefront. You have to separate the two. Valve is okay with allowing Storefront competitors to sell keys to their platform because it still creates user engagement with their platform as a whole. I want a competitor to Steam's Launcher/Library Collection. uPlay has become a strong one (feature-wise), compared to others on the market. I have zero problems with Epic Games throwing their hat in the ring.
   2. Epic Games isn't going about this in an intelligent or careful manner. Rather than "buckling under consumer pressure" (e.g., their partnership with Humble Bundle that was announced recently), they should be focusing on the users/consumers themselves. The self-proclaimed moral high-ground isn't good enough. If you want to compete directly with Valve's platform (Storefront and Launcher) you have to bridge the feature gaps AND earn the trust of the consumers. The Fortnite user-boom isn't going to keep user engagement going forever.
   3. Exclusives aren't really consumer-friendly when you think about it. It's the company trying to force consumers to embrace a new platform to compete against the "old hat" that has been sitting in the ring rather complacently. I cannot fault the people working on the Epic Games Store, but the higher-ups that have enforced this type of "competition." Epic is less likely throwing cash in front of publishers/developers as much as they're throwing promises at them ("We'll take the costs of Creators for the first year." or "We can promise that you will sell X amount of copies on the Epic Games Store or else we'll reimburse you..." -- except in the cases where the dev/publisher needed the Kickstarter backer money up front to avoid any direct budgeting concerns by announcing the exclusivity of their game/s).

Even though it's too late, I would say that the best chance that the Epic Games Store had to be in direct competition with Steam (as a platform) would be to have bridged the feature disparity as much as possible (sans any Linux/Mac and Steam Link-like features - these are a niche market and would not necessarily play to their advantage in terms of costs of development to user engagement for these features) and announced "competition" afterwards. They could have avoided the "anti-consumer exclusive" approach to penetrate the market as it would have been easier to compare the two from a consumer/user's perspective.

Going forward, Epic Games needs to chill on the "exclusives" front for a few months while they start working on improving their Storefront AND their Platform. I know a lot of people are in the mindset that "Steam GOOD, Epic BAD" because of the current direction and I can't necessarily blame those people. Epic Games has given us absolutely zero reasons to trust them. Admittedly, when I started using Steam in 2004 - I didn't trust Valve whatsoever, either. I look at the EGS as "2004 Steam but in 2019." There is plenty room for improvement, in both software and business approach.

At the same time, I am willing to give business to the Epic Games Store in hopes that it becomes a full-fledged platform that can compete with Steam/Valve (even if it's just on the domestic level of the United States). I know that's not a popular opinion. Currently, I use pretty much every launcher there is on the market. I have Origin Premier, uPlay has 15-20 games, GOG is sitting at around 200+ games, Steam is sitting at 400+ games, and I have almost 30 on the EGS [with two pre-orders].

Click to shrink...

That's what I don't get. I have yet to see one thing from people defending EGS : the point of allowing EGS to get away with all this.

You keep talking about disrupting the market, about the ends justifying the evils on the way. But if Epic has nothing to offer, if Epic has no way to survive other than torching the place to make room with anti-competitive tactics, then what the hell is the point of them existing in the first place? What is the benefit to the market, to the platform and to the ecosystem of them existing there when the only way this company has found to exist, the only value they are currently proposing is removing products from the market?

You keep saying you want competition, do you not even care what the competition is? Do you not care about the damage inflicted along the way?

I strongly get the feeling that none of the defenders of the Epic game store give a single damn about PC gaming in the first place. Personally, I've been here for over two decades and I do care.

EDIT : By the way, if you truly come into this saying that Steam is an old hat sitting in the ring complacently, you don't know the situation as much as you think you do. This perception that Steam has been stagnant has been debunked over and over, it's getting rather tiresome. There's a GDC video in this very thread that hammers this point home.

 

[lorddarkflare]

That's what I don't get. I have yet to see one thing from people defending EGS : the point of allowing EGS to get away with all this.

You keep talking about disrupting the market, about the ends justifying the evils on the way. But if Epic has nothing to offer, if Epic has no way to survive other than torching the place to make room with anti-competitive tactics, then what the hell is the point of them existing in the first place? What is the benefit to the market, to the platform and to the ecosystem of them existing there when the only way this company has found to exist, the only value they are currently proposing is removing products from the market?

You keep saying you want competition, do you not even care what the competition is? Do you not care about the damage inflicted along the way?

I strongly get the feeling that none of the defenders of the Epic game store give a single damn about PC gaming in the first place. Personally, I've been here for over two decades and I do care.

Click to shrink...

This is well said. For the most part, the best outcome we get out of all this is that both stores have feature and library parity in a few years.

The more likely case is that this all starts an arms race that contorts the PC market.

 

[Grand Galvantula]

It's not like we are getting good games from this lol
Also, this is not true, Epic Games had nothing to say about the PC versions; also we all know that QD was working on PC versions in October 2018.
They just got EGS money for 1 year exclusivity (Despite getting 100m USD in funding from Netease)

https://www.resetera.com/threads/quantic-dream-is-looking-for-direct3d-11-and-12-engineers.73944/

Click to shrink...

This is hilarious because until now, I considered the QD deal to be the one promising thing about EGS so far, and now I find that even that is horseshit.

 

[Endaeias]

That's what I don't get. I have yet to see one thing from people defending EGS : the point of allowing EGS to get away with all this.

You keep talking about disrupting the market, about the ends justifying the evils on the way. But if Epic has nothing to offer, if Epic has no way to survive other than torching the place to make room with anti-competitive tactics, then what the hell is the point of them existing in the first place? What is the benefit to the market, to the platform and to the ecosystem of them existing there when the only way this company has found to exist, the only value they are currently proposing is removing products from the market?

You keep saying you want competition, do you not even care what the competition is? Do you not care about the damage inflicted along the way?

I strongly get the feeling that none of the defenders of the Epic game store give a single damn about PC gaming in the first place. Personally, I've been here for over two decades and I do care.

Click to shrink...

"The Point of Allowing EGS to get away with all this." As long as I've been in gaming (PC and Consoles alike), I've learned one thing and one thing only - supporting one over the other leads nowhere. I'm not supporting the notion that Epic Games is the only competitor that Steam/Valve will ever have. I'm stating that I understand why Epic Games is doing what they're doing and I don't fault those who put effort into the Epic Games Store (as a product/platform) but those who are in charge of the business decisions (e.g., Sweeney). I support other Storefronts and Launchers besides EGS. I'm not the type that cares about having "all my games under one roof" like many have mentioned as to why they want to remain "loyal" (quotations are there due to not seeing anyone use any word but this in this particular context).

The market is going to get disrupted regardless of who decides to "go to war" against Steam/Valve. The other storefronts and launchers have kept themselves afloat either by the mercy of the users/consumers or because their launcher/storefront works with their First Party Games (Ubisoft = uPlay) and/or antiquated games you can't get elsewhere (CDPR = GOG). We are living in a time where companies are fighting over user engagement. The console market has been dealing with this from day one (the same reason Sony has rejected cross-play as much as they have until the consumers pushed hard is the same reason why Valve is unparalleled - they're at the head of the market with few challengers). Rather than battling over consoles, companies are battling over user engagement of their launcher or storefront (this has been the case even when we had Dregin/Impulse, Steam, Battle.NET in the early '00s).

I care but I know it's going to happen no matter what the consumers want - as long as there are companies battling over user engagement, this is going to happen and will continue to happen. The only thing I see is that people are defending Steam as the "ultimate good guy" when it has its fair share of demons and was sketchy at one point in its history as well. Valve disrupted the market when Steam started making waves, it wasn't pretty at first.

But, essentially, I feel like the whole statement of "I strongly get the feeling that none of the defenders of the Epic Game Store give a single damn about PC Gaming in the first place." is a bit loaded. How I envision the PC gaming market isn't "Let's see where I can buy the cheapest Steam key from." Nor is it "Let's all go to the Epic Game Store for our games." I want a competitor that has the features that Steam has (mostly - get rid of the bloat like "Steam Link" or "Big Picture Mode" - I can use Moonlight without either of these and they're niche features). I want a competitor to have cheaper games or different sales (Steam/Valve has been on a steady decline of decent sales for the last 3-4 years anyway). I'm okay with having 5-6+ launchers on my system - it's what my PC is for. It doesn't feel like I have to buy into a totally different ecosystem as it does when I want console exclusives (whereas I have all consoles for the last 3-4 generations now for that reason).

Epic Games can be the competitor to Steam/Valve - if they straighten their ship. For me, it's just too early to say that they're always going to be some "horrible company" because I distinctively remember the same comments about Valve almost 20 years ago now.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Game Journalists propagating this horse race between Epic's Game Store and Steam reminds me of American media and the 2016 Election.

Also, Epic doesn't want to compete, they want to control. How else can anyone explain locking out third-party sellers?

 

[Claude Augario]

You can tell the people that keep suggesting that Steam "compete" by also paying to snatch games off other storefronts are just thinly veiled console warriors. It's just going to bring back the PC gaming dystopia, and I have no doubts several publishers taking bags of money are going to be the first ones to screech about how all PC games are filthy pirates so they're just going to stop trying (again).

 

[unknownspectator]

Good to see gaming journalists getting it a lot more often than people here.

This is exactly the kind of competition that people desire. It forces Valve to step up their game, just like when they brought in refunds because Origin was doing it.

Epic is offering a great deal for developers and publishers. It's no surpise they're choosing these exclusivity deals.

It'll be interesting to see if Valve starts trying to secure exclusivity for titles in order to keep up.

Click to shrink...

I cannot believe you said this without sarcasm.

how is locking out third party sellers competition?

 

[Swenhir]

"The Point of Allowing EGS to get away with all this." As long as I've been in gaming (PC and Consoles alike), I've learned one thing and one thing only - supporting one over the other leads nowhere. I'm not supporting the notion that Epic Games is the only competitor that Steam/Valve will ever have. I'm stating that I understand why Epic Games is doing what they're doing and I don't fault those who put effort into the Epic Games Store (as a product/platform) but those who are in charge of the business decisions (e.g., Sweeney). I support other Storefronts and Launchers besides EGS. I'm not the type that cares about having "all my games under one roof" like many have mentioned as to why they want to remain "loyal" (quotations are there due to not seeing anyone use any word but this in this particular context).

The market is going to get disrupted regardless of who decides to "go to war" against Steam/Valve. The other storefronts and launchers have kept themselves afloat either by the mercy of the users/consumers or because their launcher/storefront works with their First Party Games (Ubisoft = uPlay) and/or antiquated games you can't get elsewhere (CDPR = GOG). We are living in a time where companies are fighting over user engagement. The console market has been dealing with this from day one (the same reason Sony has rejected cross-play as much as they have until the consumers pushed hard is the same reason why Valve is unparalleled - they're at the head of the market with few challengers). Rather than battling over consoles, companies are battling over user engagement of their launcher or storefront (this has been the case even when we had Dregin/Impulse, Steam, Battle.NET in the early '00s).

I care but I know it's going to happen no matter what the consumers want - as long as there are companies battling over user engagement, this is going to happen and will continue to happen. The only thing I see is that people are defending Steam as the "ultimate good guy" when it has its fair share of demons and was sketchy at one point in its history as well. Valve disrupted the market when Steam started making waves, it wasn't pretty at first.

But, essentially, I feel like the whole statement of "I strongly get the feeling that none of the defenders of the Epic Game Store give a single damn about PC Gaming in the first place." is a bit loaded. How I envision the PC gaming market isn't "Let's see where I can buy the cheapest Steam key from." Nor is it "Let's all go to the Epic Game Store for our games." I want a competitor that has the features that Steam has (mostly - get rid of the bloat like "Steam Link" or "Big Picture Mode" - I can use Moonlight without either of these and they're niche features). I want a competitor to have cheaper games or different sales (Steam/Valve has been on a steady decline of decent sales for the last 3-4 years anyway). I'm okay with having 5-6+ launchers on my system - it's what my PC is for. It doesn't feel like I have to buy into a totally different ecosystem as it does when I want console exclusives (whereas I have all consoles for the last 3-4 generations now for that reason).

Epic Games can be the competitor to Steam/Valve - if they straighten their ship. For me, it's just too early to say that they're always going to be some "horrible company" because I distinctively remember the same comments about Valve almost 20 years ago now.

Click to shrink...

Valve never got even close to pulling what EGS is doing today, and that was in 2004 with a first-party game.

None of what you are saying requires EGS to exist. Nobody in this conversation with a lick of sense gives a damn about multiple launchers, they care about how the competition is achieved and what is obtained by it. You just keep saying you want a competitor, damn be who he is or how he gets there. Of course my statement is loaded.

You describe with fatalism the mechanics of what publishers and EGS are after, but none of it makes it right or even close to inevitable, especially with how much EGS is hurting. None of it provides a single argument as to why we should take any of it. You can keep trying to discredit Steam with vague statements (and I do have my beef with them) but the fact is that they are lightyears ahead of Epic in how they have behaved themselves in the span of 15 years compared to the disaster Epic has achieved in just its first few months.

 

[Blah]

The idea that Steam should "compete" by buying exclusives is so insane that it's almost as if the people saying it are either complete idiots or, at best, trolling.

Valve has had enough money for a decade to lock down any game they want but instead created the best user experience and store on PC.

People cheering Epic for releasing a store that's worse in every single conceivable way while being completely lazy in their pursuit of a userbase by throwing money at publishers, not developers, and then calling Valve lazy is inane and stupid.

 

[Cyberclops]

Is there any chance Epic could do something similar to what Xbox and Sony do for marketing deals, advertise the game as being available on the Epic Store without actually making it exclusive? If they could do this and encourage publishers to leverage the 88% cut to offer lower prices to consumers, I'm sure some people would love to use the Epic Store (at least those that haven't been put off by all this bullshit).

 

[Armaros]

Is there any chance Epic could do something similar to what Xbox and Sony do for marketing deals, advertise the game as being available on the Epic Store without actually making it exclusive? If they could do this and encourage publishers to leverage the 88% cut to offer lower prices to consumers, I'm sure some people would love to use the Epic Store (at least those that haven't been put off by all this bullshit).

Click to shrink...

They don't want to be doing any of that stuff.

They even said they aren't going to do any marketing for the games they have on the store and will expect devs and publishers to pay influencer to market their games for them.

Sergei, predicts anywhere between 5-20% for this service, Epic is only providing 5% for a year and then everyone is on their own.

 

[chaobreaker]

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (as well as I probably should): I don't see anything directly wrong with what Epic Games is doing at this time. Let me explain myself before the pitchforks come out and the arrows start flying. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious issues with the EGS. I'll break down my thoughts/opinions as of now:

1. Feature Disparity:
   1. It's obvious that Epic Games wasn't prepared to announce that they were "competing" with Valve (Steam). Feature-wise, the EGS lacks some of the core features that consumers expect out of a launcher (let alone one that would be in "direct competition" with Steam). The list here is tremendous: from cloud saves (yes, I know it's on the roadmap) to improvements to library management, from Store search improvements to even a shopping cart.
   2. Keeping track of everything that they've done, I am under the assumption that Sweeney and the Board of Directors decided this was the business decision that they were going to make for 2019. With the revenue stream coming from Fortnite, Epic Games has the funds to disrupt the market and "compete" against Valve. The issue here is that, as a product, the Epic Game Store isn't exactly ready for "prime time." Sweeney has made comments to suggest that he is attempting to seek the "moral high ground" by the 12/88 split route. This is an easy method of pulling publishers to the EGS - but not consumers. Feature disparity is a major issue when going up against a long-standing competitor that has the support of the community.
   3. Even looking at their roadmap (here), I get the impression that their near term features are primarily focused on the publisher-experience versus the User Experience (there are some user experience enhancements but they also improve the experience of the publisher - so I would argue those are moot/cancel one another out).
2. "The Split"
   1. Okay, this does not take a genius and it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread alone: the 12/88 split isn't a sustainable split. Given that Epic Games has a substantial backing from investors (not including the 43% ownership from Tencent), on top of the revenue stream they've had from Fortnite (despite Epic knowing that it isn't going to last forever), they can take a loss for a year or two before there's an obvious business need to change the dynamic.
   2. As EGS expands onto the international platform (if they choose to go this route at all), they are going to have to take a hard look at the associated costs with said expansion. While they may be comfortable putting additional fees in front of the consumer, this isn't going to be a sound market strategy in the long-term. This gives the impression that they are either: a) not planning on being as global/international as Steam/Valve or b) they are simply trying to disrupt the market.
3. Exclusives
   1. Most of the complaints here about exclusives have been the same core question: "How does limiting my options as a consumer help me in any way, shape, or form?" - Rather than beating around the bush, the answer is the that everyone else on this forum knows: it does not.
   2. However, in order for Epic Game to address the feature disparity while still trying to disrupt the market -- exclusives are all that they have at this point and time. This is a business decision that they decided to go with in order to penetrate the PC Gaming market. They are addressing the PC gaming market in a similar fashion as the console one: exclusives drive sales. You're not going to be able to address the feature disparity without long-term development so the next best solution is to simply force consumers to their product/platform.
   3. It isn't a strong go-to strategy even though they're basically capitalizing on the user-base that their launcher grew from Fortnite players. People are purchasing games on the Epic Game Store; much to the chagrin of many gamers on forums, social media, and Reddit.
4. "Chinese Spyware"
   1. Okay, let's nip this one in the bud. The Epic Games Store, at this point, is no more spyware than Steam, uPlay, or Origin. As of version 9.10.2 - they've started using the Steamworks API versus the hack implementation of reading the localconfig.vdf file (Steam's userdata file).
   2. In regard to the tracking cookie, most launchers/storefronts use this if they're using Windows API or leveraging some type of native client SDK/API to render their stores and track information about navigation/feature usage/etc. This isn't a popular statement because it isn't the reality that people want to hear. Getting system information or browsing habits allow for aggregation of data to make projections regarding what features are being used, what games are being searched (in and outside of the storefront), and user behavior as a whole (to improve the product, in many cases).
   3. The whole "Tencent" argument is pretty lofty, at best. If there comes a time where it's obvious that Epic Games is sending user/behavior/web browing data to Tencent, that's on me. But as it stands, a company with 40% ownership still isn't going to convince a company to stab themselves in the foot that badly (especially when they do so well on their own).
5. Competition
   1. Competition is healthy. Personally (and I mean this strictly of my own opinion), I want a full competitor to Steam/Valve. I don't mean that I want Steam key resellers - that's not a competition of Steam, but the competition of Steam's Storefront. You have to separate the two. Valve is okay with allowing Storefront competitors to sell keys to their platform because it still creates user engagement with their platform as a whole. I want a competitor to Steam's Launcher/Library Collection. uPlay has become a strong one (feature-wise), compared to others on the market. I have zero problems with Epic Games throwing their hat in the ring.
   2. Epic Games isn't going about this in an intelligent or careful manner. Rather than "buckling under consumer pressure" (e.g., their partnership with Humble Bundle that was announced recently), they should be focusing on the users/consumers themselves. The self-proclaimed moral high-ground isn't good enough. If you want to compete directly with Valve's platform (Storefront and Launcher) you have to bridge the feature gaps AND earn the trust of the consumers. The Fortnite user-boom isn't going to keep user engagement going forever.
   3. Exclusives aren't really consumer-friendly when you think about it. It's the company trying to force consumers to embrace a new platform to compete against the "old hat" that has been sitting in the ring rather complacently. I cannot fault the people working on the Epic Games Store, but the higher-ups that have enforced this type of "competition." Epic is less likely throwing cash in front of publishers/developers as much as they're throwing promises at them ("We'll take the costs of Creators for the first year." or "We can promise that you will sell X amount of copies on the Epic Games Store or else we'll reimburse you..." -- except in the cases where the dev/publisher needed the Kickstarter backer money up front to avoid any direct budgeting concerns by announcing the exclusivity of their game/s).

Even though it's too late, I would say that the best chance that the Epic Games Store had to be in direct competition with Steam (as a platform) would be to have bridged the feature disparity as much as possible (sans any Linux/Mac and Steam Link-like features - these are a niche market and would not necessarily play to their advantage in terms of costs of development to user engagement for these features) and announced "competition" afterwards. They could have avoided the "anti-consumer exclusive" approach to penetrate the market as it would have been easier to compare the two from a consumer/user's perspective.

Going forward, Epic Games needs to chill on the "exclusives" front for a few months while they start working on improving their Storefront AND their Platform. I know a lot of people are in the mindset that "Steam GOOD, Epic BAD" because of the current direction and I can't necessarily blame those people. Epic Games has given us absolutely zero reasons to trust them. Admittedly, when I started using Steam in 2004 - I didn't trust Valve whatsoever, either. I look at the EGS as "2004 Steam but in 2019." There is plenty room for improvement, in both software and business approach.

At the same time, I am willing to give business to the Epic Games Store in hopes that it becomes a full-fledged platform that can compete with Steam/Valve (even if it's just on the domestic level of the United States). I know that's not a popular opinion. Currently, I use pretty much every launcher there is on the market. I have Origin Premier, uPlay has 15-20 games, GOG is sitting at around 200+ games, Steam is sitting at 400+ games, and I have almost 30 on the EGS [with two pre-orders].

Click to shrink...

Well said.

 

[chrisypoo]

I for one subscribe to the theory of trickle down economics and big publishers:

Click to shrink...

I don't think one image could possibly sum up how fucked up the wage disparities and gaps are in this country as succinctly as this one does.

 

[Skux]

So to you this is what this is all about? Developers wanting Steam to pay them for the privilege of selling their games?

Click to shrink...

Yes. Developers and publishers should be able to shop around for the best deal. They didn't have much of a choice on PC until now, where they had to go to Steam and live with its crappy revenue cut and dire curation, or else get no visibility at all. Finally someone comes along and actually incentivises developing and releasing quality games on PC, and people are suddenly mad about them choosing the better deal because it means a game they might want to play is on a different launcher? It doesn't make sense. We should be supporting a company making bold moves to disrupt the PC gaming market which challenge the Steam status quo that gamers have seemingly resigned themselves to.

I cannot believe you said this without sarcasm.

how is locking out third party sellers competition?

Click to shrink...

If one platform becomes more attractive for customers to spend their money on because of a high quality, in-demand exclusive game, others will improve their services to compete. They could bolster their subscription services (Origin Access, PlayStation Plus), some might use platform features to keep them in their ecosystem (Trophy collection, cloud saves, game streaming), and some might sell third party games cheaper than competitors. But by far their biggest drawcard is high quality exclusive games. Microsoft knows how important this is, and saw how many people are playing games like God of War and Spider-Man and Breath of the Wild, and bought a slew of studios last year to prepare them for next generation.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (as well as I probably should): I don't see anything directly wrong with what Epic Games is doing at this time. Let me explain myself before the pitchforks come out and the arrows start flying. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious issues with the EGS. I'll break down my thoughts/opinions as of now:

1. Feature Disparity:
   1. It's obvious that Epic Games wasn't prepared to announce that they were "competing" with Valve (Steam). Feature-wise, the EGS lacks some of the core features that consumers expect out of a launcher (let alone one that would be in "direct competition" with Steam). The list here is tremendous: from cloud saves (yes, I know it's on the roadmap) to improvements to library management, from Store search improvements to even a shopping cart.
   2. Keeping track of everything that they've done, I am under the assumption that Sweeney and the Board of Directors decided this was the business decision that they were going to make for 2019. With the revenue stream coming from Fortnite, Epic Games has the funds to disrupt the market and "compete" against Valve. The issue here is that, as a product, the Epic Game Store isn't exactly ready for "prime time." Sweeney has made comments to suggest that he is attempting to seek the "moral high ground" by the 12/88 split route. This is an easy method of pulling publishers to the EGS - but not consumers. Feature disparity is a major issue when going up against a long-standing competitor that has the support of the community.
   3. Even looking at their roadmap (here), I get the impression that their near term features are primarily focused on the publisher-experience versus the User Experience (there are some user experience enhancements but they also improve the experience of the publisher - so I would argue those are moot/cancel one another out).
2. "The Split"
   1. Okay, this does not take a genius and it has been mentioned numerous times on this thread alone: the 12/88 split isn't a sustainable split. Given that Epic Games has a substantial backing from investors (not including the 43% ownership from Tencent), on top of the revenue stream they've had from Fortnite (despite Epic knowing that it isn't going to last forever), they can take a loss for a year or two before there's an obvious business need to change the dynamic.
   2. As EGS expands onto the international platform (if they choose to go this route at all), they are going to have to take a hard look at the associated costs with said expansion. While they may be comfortable putting additional fees in front of the consumer, this isn't going to be a sound market strategy in the long-term. This gives the impression that they are either: a) not planning on being as global/international as Steam/Valve or b) they are simply trying to disrupt the market.
3. Exclusives
   1. Most of the complaints here about exclusives have been the same core question: "How does limiting my options as a consumer help me in any way, shape, or form?" - Rather than beating around the bush, the answer is the that everyone else on this forum knows: it does not.
   2. However, in order for Epic Game to address the feature disparity while still trying to disrupt the market -- exclusives are all that they have at this point and time. This is a business decision that they decided to go with in order to penetrate the PC Gaming market. They are addressing the PC gaming market in a similar fashion as the console one: exclusives drive sales. You're not going to be able to address the feature disparity without long-term development so the next best solution is to simply force consumers to their product/platform.
   3. It isn't a strong go-to strategy even though they're basically capitalizing on the user-base that their launcher grew from Fortnite players. People are purchasing games on the Epic Game Store; much to the chagrin of many gamers on forums, social media, and Reddit.
4. "Chinese Spyware"
   1. Okay, let's nip this one in the bud. The Epic Games Store, at this point, is no more spyware than Steam, uPlay, or Origin. As of version 9.10.2 - they've started using the Steamworks API versus the hack implementation of reading the localconfig.vdf file (Steam's userdata file).
   2. In regard to the tracking cookie, most launchers/storefronts use this if they're using Windows API or leveraging some type of native client SDK/API to render their stores and track information about navigation/feature usage/etc. This isn't a popular statement because it isn't the reality that people want to hear. Getting system information or browsing habits allow for aggregation of data to make projections regarding what features are being used, what games are being searched (in and outside of the storefront), and user behavior as a whole (to improve the product, in many cases).
   3. The whole "Tencent" argument is pretty lofty, at best. If there comes a time where it's obvious that Epic Games is sending user/behavior/web browing data to Tencent, that's on me. But as it stands, a company with 40% ownership still isn't going to convince a company to stab themselves in the foot that badly (especially when they do so well on their own).
5. Competition
   1. Competition is healthy. Personally (and I mean this strictly of my own opinion), I want a full competitor to Steam/Valve. I don't mean that I want Steam key resellers - that's not a competition of Steam, but the competition of Steam's Storefront. You have to separate the two. Valve is okay with allowing Storefront competitors to sell keys to their platform because it still creates user engagement with their platform as a whole. I want a competitor to Steam's Launcher/Library Collection. uPlay has become a strong one (feature-wise), compared to others on the market. I have zero problems with Epic Games throwing their hat in the ring.
   2. Epic Games isn't going about this in an intelligent or careful manner. Rather than "buckling under consumer pressure" (e.g., their partnership with Humble Bundle that was announced recently), they should be focusing on the users/consumers themselves. The self-proclaimed moral high-ground isn't good enough. If you want to compete directly with Valve's platform (Storefront and Launcher) you have to bridge the feature gaps AND earn the trust of the consumers. The Fortnite user-boom isn't going to keep user engagement going forever.
   3. Exclusives aren't really consumer-friendly when you think about it. It's the company trying to force consumers to embrace a new platform to compete against the "old hat" that has been sitting in the ring rather complacently. I cannot fault the people working on the Epic Games Store, but the higher-ups that have enforced this type of "competition." Epic is less likely throwing cash in front of publishers/developers as much as they're throwing promises at them ("We'll take the costs of Creators for the first year." or "We can promise that you will sell X amount of copies on the Epic Games Store or else we'll reimburse you..." -- except in the cases where the dev/publisher needed the Kickstarter backer money up front to avoid any direct budgeting concerns by announcing the exclusivity of their game/s).

Even though it's too late, I would say that the best chance that the Epic Games Store had to be in direct competition with Steam (as a platform) would be to have bridged the feature disparity as much as possible (sans any Linux/Mac and Steam Link-like features - these are a niche market and would not necessarily play to their advantage in terms of costs of development to user engagement for these features) and announced "competition" afterwards. They could have avoided the "anti-consumer exclusive" approach to penetrate the market as it would have been easier to compare the two from a consumer/user's perspective.

Going forward, Epic Games needs to chill on the "exclusives" front for a few months while they start working on improving their Storefront AND their Platform. I know a lot of people are in the mindset that "Steam GOOD, Epic BAD" because of the current direction and I can't necessarily blame those people. Epic Games has given us absolutely zero reasons to trust them. Admittedly, when I started using Steam in 2004 - I didn't trust Valve whatsoever, either. I look at the EGS as "2004 Steam but in 2019." There is plenty room for improvement, in both software and business approach.

At the same time, I am willing to give business to the Epic Games Store in hopes that it becomes a full-fledged platform that can compete with Steam/Valve (even if it's just on the domestic level of the United States). I know that's not a popular opinion. Currently, I use pretty much every launcher there is on the market. I have Origin Premier, uPlay has 15-20 games, GOG is sitting at around 200+ games, Steam is sitting at 400+ games, and I have almost 30 on the EGS [with two pre-orders].

Click to shrink...

Great post, I agree with most of it. One thing I'm not sure on is if the split really is unsustainable, though only because I don't really know much about that stuff. Those exclusivity deals definitely aren't at least though.

 

[Armaros]

Yes. Developers and publishers should be able to shop around for the best deal. They didn't have much of a choice on PC until now, where they had to go to Steam and live with its crappy revenue cut and dire curation, or else get no visibility at all. Finally someone comes along and actually incentivises developing and releasing quality games on PC, and people are suddenly mad about them choosing the better deal because it means a game they might want to play is on a different launcher? It doesn't make sense. We should be supporting a company making bold moves to disrupt the PC gaming market which challenge the Steam status quo that gamers have seemingly resigned themselves to.



If one platform becomes more attractive for customers to spend their money on because of a high quality, in-demand exclusive game, others will improve their services to compete. They could bolster their subscription services (Origin Access, PlayStation Plus), some might use platform features to keep them in their ecosystem (Trophy collection, cloud saves, game streaming), and some might sell third party games cheaper than competitors. But by far their biggest drawcard is high quality exclusive games. Microsoft knows how important this is, and saw how many people are playing games like God of War and Spider-Man and Breath of the Wild, and bought a slew of studios last year to prepare them for next generation.

Click to shrink...

None of that addresses going out of their way to lock out third party stores.

Epic isn't funding games, at least the big three can say they are directly funding games to be made.

Epic is just paying enough to try to push out their competition so they came become a monopoly

And everyone making excuses for the Epic store requires utopia levels of hope and good-will that Epic will be beneveloent if they become the great Power in the PC market.

When all their actions are cynical, and on various ways deceptive, their Data mining that the entire games media just scoffed and ignored is telling.

Or telling poorer nations that don't have western style credit agencies that they just have to pay more due to CC fees because it cuts into their margin.

 

[Shengar]

Great post, I agree with most of it. One thing I'm not sure on is if the split really is unsustainable, though only because I don't really know much about that stuff. Those exclusivity deals definitely aren't at least though.

Click to shrink...

Epic is the only digital storefront AFAIK that burdened CC fees to customer. I don't know but I guess that's a clear sign of the unsustainability of 12% cut.

 

[Jawmuncher]

I'm still bothered by Epic jumping into this and not even using their flagship unreal series. One with a lot of PC history. It's the same thing I pointed a finger at EA for.

 

[Armaros]

I'm still bothered by Epic jumping into this and not even using their flagship unreal series. One with a lot of OC history. It's the same thing I pointed a finger at EA for.

Click to shrink...

Funding games is harder then just buying excluvitiy. They have their game as a money maker and now they want their store as a money maker.

In their eyes, they don't need anothe game, not when that money can go in buying exclusives at the last minute.

 

[Adnor]

I'm still bothered by Epic jumping into this and not even using their flagship unreal series. One with a lot of OC history. It's the same thing I pointed a finger at EA for.

Click to shrink...

They stopped supporting Unreal Tournament 4 before opening the store, so you can see how much they care tbh.

 

[Deleted member 27751]

Yes. Developers and publishers should be able to shop around for the best deal. They didn't have much of a choice on PC until now, where they had to go to Steam and live with its crappy revenue cut and dire curation, or else get no visibility at all. Finally someone comes along and actually incentivises developing and releasing quality games on PC, and people are suddenly mad about them choosing the better deal because it means a game they might want to play is on a different launcher? It doesn't make sense. We should be supporting a company making bold moves to disrupt the PC gaming market which challenge the Steam status quo that gamers have seemingly resigned themselves to.



If one platform becomes more attractive for customers to spend their money on because of a high quality, in-demand exclusive game, others will improve their services to compete. They could bolster their subscription services (Origin Access, PlayStation Plus), some might use platform features to keep them in their ecosystem (Trophy collection, cloud saves, game streaming), and some might sell third party games cheaper than competitors. But by far their biggest drawcard is high quality exclusive games. Microsoft knows how important this is, and saw how many people are playing games like God of War and Spider-Man and Breath of the Wild, and bought a slew of studios last year to prepare them for next generation.

Click to shrink...

So then what is wrong with simply having Epic Game Store be a storefront that offers curation and a better cut but still have the games be non-exclusive? Why does it have to be exclusive?

Seriously people, exclusitivity is not the answer and will not spur sudden competitive stances. All it does is drive a edge between an open market like PC and shape it to be a quasi console environment. You know what is competition? Revenue splits, storefront features like Steam Controller accessibility that allows physically disabled gamers the chance to play games, genuine curation and even first party titles/development branded exclusives.

It's pointless arguing over and over because the facts have been laid out a billion times but when game writers (journalist is not a label for those ignorant of fact-based writing) bolster this wrongful thinking it just goes back to square one. I'm sick of it, and all this is doing is fucking up gaming more than it already is in today's volatile world. Apparently pro-consumer methods are second to "disrupting a market" in the most anti-competitive nature.

 

[vinnykappa]

Epic is not paying for exclusives, they are paying money to keep games off of Steam. Giving the consumer less choice is not good for anybody.

Click to shrink...

This has typical Tencent tactics written all over it. Ever since its inception, Tencent has always been focusing on not how to succeed, but how to make sure other competitors fail.

 

[Alexandros]

There really isn't any evidence to indicate it isn't, though I don't doubt it has its limitations. You've just noted the surcharges for different payment models, which is something else entirely. And your frustrations there are justified. But that isn't the 88-12 split.

Click to shrink...

The fact that Epic passes along the cost of a different payment method to the customer when it rises from the 5-6% standard to 10-15% is absolute, definitive proof that 12% is not enough of a cut to run a global digital storefront. Epic is running EGS on razor-thin margins that aren't sustainable in the long run.

 

[Mentalist]

Whomever wrote that article is an idiot. I don't buy the "media is paid by Epic" argument- not when morons like that are around offering praise of this mythical "competition" and suggesting Valve should start paying developers for exclusivity to combat Epic. FFS, that's ludicrous.

EGS remains hot garbage for the end-user. Their aim is to court the developers (mostly pubs though), as well as those shaping public opinion (the "influencers" ... I actually wonder, will any "gaming media" people be eligible for that "influencer" status? Cuz wouldn't that be an interesting conflict of interest). Even bypassing that speculation, I'm sure there's a positivebias from the media towards Epic, because Epic, y'know, talks to them. And makes them feel appreciated and useful. Whereas Valve, despite being pretty amazing for users, doesn't do much for "the media"

At this point, I'm certainly not willing to buy into the media's bright vision of a happy future where Epic and Valve are duking it out for the good of "the customers" . My platform of preference is GOG. It continues to struggle to gain relevance, because one of its core tenets- anti-DRM stands in the way of big publisher's love affair with Denuvo and it's ilk. Last year, we saw moves in the right direction- THQ Nordic, a decent mid-size publisher announced all of their major releases (so basically mid-size budget double-A productions) will be releasing on GOG same day as steam. That was a huge positive move for the industry, one I hope many other pubs will follow-and that's why, despite recent controversy, I'll probably still buy Fade to Silence and Biomutant close to release date, on GOG (despite price being higher than steam)- provided games don't totally tank on reviews. Because I consider DRM-free games to be significant added value to outweigh other considerations, including price.

Epic not only fails to offer me a comparable compelling reason (it'll be good for the developers" isn't good enough, sorry), but it also actively contradicts the direction in which I want to see PC gaming go by its exclusivity policies.

Not only that, but launching a half-baked launcher and expecting me to be happy to use it is, quite frankly, insulting. It demonstrates Epic's contempt to me as a consumer (understandable, since the goal are the devs, and consumers are expected to be sheep and obediently "go where the games are")

In order for me to consider purchasing a game on the EGS, I require the followingh
-basic features (cloud saves and achievements. Preferrably user forums, since I don't use either discord or reddit, and Epic suggesting I should have to use them to resolve problems with games on their launcher is also insulting)
-better price in my currency (CAD) then what's available through Steam or any key reseller
-a game not being exclusive to the store (3rd party exclusivity is antithetical to PC gaming, and I won't pay a cent to support it)

...

And even after all this, if the same game's available on GOG, I will always buy there. Because the option to download an installer that'll always work offline, that I can replicate, back up and do whatever I want with (because it's not copy-protected) is the closest I come to semblance of ownership in the digital age, and that's a feature that trumps pretty much anything.

So yeah, Epic needs to come up with a killer feature to trump GOG. Otherwise, I don't think Im ever likely to support them. And if they make moves that damage my platform of preference, you can be damn sure I'll be vocal in condemning them.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I'll give Epic credit for one thing:

They've successfully managed to bring console warrior bullshit to the PC.

I didn't even think it was possible.

 

[Fredrik]

I think people would be more welcoming to the competition if Epic used the moneyhat money to lower the prices instead of to prevent games from appearing on another store.

 

[Mentalist]

I'll give Epic credit for one thing:

They've successfully managed to bring console warrior bullshit to the PC.

I didn't even think it was possible.

Click to shrink...

I really wish they'd just let thinking of us as filthy pirates and staid the F away from PC gaming.

But, noooooo, they saw how good we were having it, and so they decided to come back and ruin everything.

 

[Shengar]

I think people would be more welcoming to the competition if Epic used the moneyhat money to lower the prices instead of to prevent games from appearing on another store.

Click to shrink...

They could also like, ussd that money to develop new Jazz Jackrabbit or continue to support Unreal or revive Paragon.
But nope, let use it for moneyhat. It's clear that their intenr is malicious.

 

[Fredrik]

They could also like, ussd that money to develop new Jazz Jackrabbit or continue to support Unreal or revive Paragon.
But nope, let use it for moneyhat. It's clear that their intenr is malicious.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. My stance on PC gaming is that I don't care where the games are launched, I don't use only Steam, but this scenario makes me want to boycott EGS, haven't tried their store yet and maybe I'll keep it that way.