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

[AshenOne]

Yeah my mind has been changed, I was in the "it's just another button to click, get over it" camp, but after reading the thoughts of developers and considering all of the points raised, I now see the problems it will cause to all parties

Click to shrink...

Congrats mate you actually got enlightened on stuff because you made an attempt or effort to try and read, understand what some of the consumers/devs. have been saying and you changed your mind accordingly. It might not seem a big deal to you but as someone whose been using Steam for 9+ years.. simply others bothering to read, understand your argument is a huge deal with people who don't use steam a lot or simply don't use it at all, in this epic store issue. For some reason getting your point across to them is seeming to be a huge effort lol.

Either they're not willing to understand the crux of the issue or simply are willingly bad mouthing steam to try to force em out of the competition between platforms.

 

[Armaros]

So, do the same things as Valve, but better. When they have a decade head start. And a mindshare advantage. And an advantage in user buy-in. Sounds like a winning plan.

Seems like you guys want them to play Valve's game on Valve's turf under Valve's rules and somehow expect to make a dent in them?

Click to shrink...

So consumer friendly features is 'Valve's turf" now?

 

[blizzardjesus]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

 

[Hasseigaku]

So consumer friendly features is 'Valve's turf" now?

Click to shrink...

They literally said "Do the exact same things but better". You can be consumer friendly in other ways.

 

[ThankDougie]

You still dont get it.

Epic isn't giving visiblity to some and not others, Epic is going to completely shut out tons of devs from even selling on their stores.

None of the currently marketed games are games that would fit Epic's PR about indie devs that suffer from a lack of visiblity and thus need a curated store to stand out.

The devs that would benifit from a curated store to sell more copies that they currently done are going to be the ones that are locked out of the Epic store.

Click to shrink...

I totally do get it. And developers shut out from Epic have the ability to go elsewhere, to all the places everyone else will tell you are great for various reasons, like Itch and GoG.

Epic is launching with a strategy similar to what consoles launch with: bring people in with exclusives and great content. It absolutely sucks, but it's not bad competition. No more than any other competition with Steam is, especially since the move costs users nothing.

Do the features (or lack therefore) suck? Yeah! And if that costs Epic the battle against Valve, then it costs them. But nothing says they won't improve on what they have if they see they have incentive to. Epic has a shitload of money, but for a group of people so interested in talking about markets, it shocks me that so few recognize a company's interest in preserving their capital. They'll invest more if the market to invest more exists. Why risk all the time, money, and labor needed to become the next Steam if exclusives can't win over a solid bad? Epic might be worth a megaton of cash, but that doesn't mean they're going to dump a huge chunk of it into one place all of a sudden.

I'm not rooting for Epic, but I do like to see competition and I do like to see developers make more money, even if they're already recognized indie developers. People talk about them as if they are AAA studios just cashing in on more exposure and... that's not true!

 

[Armaros]

They literally said "Do the exact same things but better". You can be consumer friendly in other ways.

Click to shrink...

Which Epic has done none and has announced no plans to do so...

They even have engaged in PR that Valve's consumer features are detrimental so thus they dont need to implement them.

Causing absurd things to happen, like Ashen players going to the Steam page of Ashen (which has no launch date now) to make posts about bugs.

 

[Crayon]

So, do the same things as Valve, but better. When they have a decade head start. And a mindshare advantage. And an advantage in user buy-in. Sounds like a winning plan.

Seems like you guys want them to play Valve's game on Valve's turf under Valve's rules and somehow expect to make a dent in them?

Click to shrink...

Okay so trying to approach the functionality and utility of steam is off the table. Noted.

 

[ThankDougie]

Okay so trying to approach the functionality and utility of steam is off the table. Noted.

Click to shrink...

That isn't what he said.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

You still dont get it.

Epic isn't giving visiblity to some and not others, Epic is going to completely shut out tons of devs from even selling on their stores.

None of the currently marketed games are games that would fit Epic's PR about indie devs that suffer from a lack of visiblity and thus need a curated store to stand out.

The devs that would benifit from a curated store to sell more copies that they currently done are going to be the ones that are locked out of the Epic store.

Click to shrink...

While I could totally see Epic curating their store in a way where lots of developers don't have a chance to sell their game on their store: there actually is no way for us to tell if that will be the case or not yet. As it is right now, the store only has games selected by Epic, yes. But that is something that will only be the case for the start of the store. They've already said they're working towards opening up the store generally to developers in mid-2019:

How important is curation to this new platform? Does Epic plan to be fastidious to not overwhelm the marketplace with every game under the sun or do you want an ocean deep pool of games where quality isn't necessarily a factor for a game to appear on the platform?

The Epic Games store is launching with a small selection of handpicked games and will grow over time. As we work toward opening up generally to developers in mid-2019, we plan to set a reasonable quality threshold.

Click to shrink...

Source: https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/12/04/tim-sweeney-answers-questions-about-the-new-epic-games-store

Until then, and probably not until a bit after the store has opened up more, we cannot tell if they're going to shut out tons of devs.

 

[sprinkles]

Surely you realize giving developers more money is a great sales pitch to developers looking to get away from the Steam marketplace?

Click to shrink...

Only some developers. With a heavily curated storefront the bulk of suffering (from exposure on Steam because the competition there is huge) indie devs get nothing out of the Epic store.

 

[Armaros]

While I could totally see Epic curating their store in a way where lots of developers don't have a chance to sell their game on their store: there actually is no way for us to tell if that will be the case or not yet. As it is right now, the store only has games selected by Epic, yes. But they've already said they're working towards opening up the store generally to developers in mid-2019:

Source: https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/12/04/tim-sweeney-answers-questions-about-the-new-epic-games-store

Until then, and probably not until a bit after the store has opened up more, we cannot tell if they're going to shut out tons of devs.

Click to shrink...

Their policy is basically a mirror of when Steam started hitting it big with heavy curation...
Valve was constantly criticized for not letting well received games onto the Steam Store.

Nothing that Epic has shown or said would solve that exact issue that plagued early Steam. If anything, Epic seems to be wanting a even more curated store then that. At least Steam in its early days still launched with a variety of sized games from a variety of sizes of devs, It wasn't all just the big indie devs only.

 

[Deleted member 32374]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

This is extremely reductive.

The Epic store needs to catch up feature wise to really be good for consumers.

 

[Deleted member 10601]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

Did you even read the first post and the article?

 

[ThankDougie]

Only some developers. With a heavily curated storefront the bulk of suffering (from exposure on Steam because the competition there is huge) indie devs get nothing out of the Epic store.

Click to shrink...

Same thing happens at Steam, it's just based on money instead of curation: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks#announcements/detail/1697191267930157838

 

[Hasseigaku]

But if I'm talking really honestly, you don't need to 1:1 match Steam to get people interested. Just offering a decent experience, and show that you are trying to do SOMETHING good, and you'll get people supporting you. That basically what GOG does with their decent client and DRM free commitment.

For me personally, they could do this: "We are launching with Linux support day 1, and we will have Proton support" and I'd have it installed already regardless of the games on offer.

For developers, the 88% cut and Twitch stuff is a good start, but things like a more fully fledged bug reporting system would get them attention too.

Click to shrink...

My contention is that just as good is never going to be enough in order to get people to convert from Steam due to their inherent advantages in mindshare and marketshare, and that even if you matched them 1:1 you're unlikely to get people to your store without other incentives.

Oh, like say, exclusives. I'm not saying it's right or good, but I'm saying that if you want people to be legitimate competitors in any meaningful way, something like this was always going to be the easiest way of drawing people over.

I feel like, though, that the conclusion to many of these threads about are that people don't care about Valve having meaningful competition if it inconveniences them.

 

[Thrill_house]

As long as they keep pulling this shit, I'll never use the epic store. I'll miss some games and thats fine, I can live with that.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

What a fucking pathetic hot take.

Cook Serve Delicious is far from a "bad flash looking game", and there is a lot more to this story than "more money to devs, no change in price to consumers". If you had read the OP or the second post you would have known that. But of course you have no interest in doing that.

 

[Armaros]

Same thing happens at Steam, it's just based on money instead of curation: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks#announcements/detail/1697191267930157838

Click to shrink...

You keep claiming you are getting it but you keep posting nonsense comparisons.

So having a different revenue share is the same as not even being able to appear on a store to sell?

 

[sprinkles]

Same thing happens at Steam, it's just based on money instead of curation: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks#announcements/detail/1697191267930157838

Click to shrink...

Not having enough sales to get into a higher revenue tier is a bit different to not being able to sell your game at all because curation denies entry.

 

[Hasseigaku]

Okay so trying to approach the functionality and utility of steam is off the table. Noted.

Click to shrink...

Way to miss the point. Bye.

 

[Pryme]

Excellent OP, well written articles. One can see where some of the concern comes in.

There are two sides to any story, though, and some devs have weighed in already on the other side of the spectrum.

We'll see how this all pans out my mid next year.

 

[nded]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

I love how you just had to get that shot in at the author. The Cook, Serve, Delicious games are quite well received, by the way.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

Their policy is basically a mirror of when Steam started hitting it big with heavy curation...
Valve was constantly criticized for not letting well received games onto the Steam Store.

Nothing that Epic has shown or said would solve that exact issue that plagued early Steam.

Click to shrink...

My point is though we have no way of knowing if they'll handle curation the same way Steam did. We don't know yet what they consider a "reasonable quality treshold". It could mean anything from "the game functions and isn't horribly messed up in some way" to "we expect this game to meet these standards for what we consider a good game". But until they clarify this or even until they start opening up the store to developers more we won't know that yet.

 

[GhostTrick]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

Why dont you go back to the Nintendo threads instead of coming here for console warring ?
Btw, Cook, Serve, Delicious 2 is releasing on Switch soon. Now you can start praising that devs because you're a pathetic fanboy.

 

[Shantom]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

How about you just not be a cunt to a developer acclaimed by those who actually play indie games?

 

[Crayon]

It's really not down to people being dug in or loyal to steam. The way we use steam and the things that were used to doing with steam - yes it would take a lot of work for someone else to match. Because valves been putting in the work for years and nobody else has.

But is it really too much to ask for someone to even try? Gog and itch get a very positive buzz across the board because they're trying good stuff. Trying.

 

[Nzyme32]

Fully agree, much the same as the points most of the PC gaming folk here have made as well

Eventually I hope Epic do actually compete in a healthy way, actually challenging Steam's features for customers as well as developers alike. Right now, its just dire.

 

[ThankDougie]

You keep claiming you are getting it but you keep posting nonsense comparisons.

So having a different revenue share is the same as not even being able to appear on a store to sell?

Click to shrink...

Epic curates who gets to be on their platform, which means a select group of developers get their revenue share and not others
Steam chose a sales goal for modifying revenue share, which means only a select group of developers will get special benefits from being on Steam and not others

Sure, you get to appear on Steam, but you don't get preferential treatment unless you hit a sales number they've set for you, which means some indie devs benefit more from Steam than others. That is no different than devs benefiting from Epic's curation choices.

Having a different revenue share on either platform shows that only certain devs benefit on both platforms. Not appearing on Epic is actually about the same as appearing on Steam but not making enough money to get the share Steam has designated certain developers are worth. My point isn't that they are exactly alike, but that both platforms are participating in a kind of curation.

 

[Instro]

But even if Epic adds these features, their moneyhats to keep games from popular indies away from competing storefronts should stop as soon as possible. It's anti-consumer and anti-competitive bullshit.

Click to shrink...

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

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

 

[gozu]

This is no charity. I won't support someone in the hope it MAY become as good in the next years.

Normally, competitors are expected to EXCEED or SURPASS the others, to be appealing, in a way or another. Price, features and such.

Click to shrink...

Well said. As a customer, I will remain with GoG as my first choice (no DRM), and Steam as my second choice (gamepad support), unless I get a better deal.

After reading a few very enlightening threads on this topic (such as great topic btw), my main hope is that the Epic store will light a fire under Valve's butts and push them to improve on the areas that do need improvement. Here are a couple that are dear to my heart, but I'm sure there are more:

1. Curation.
2. Taking a smaller cut of steam workshop content (user-created 3D models and such). Did you know that Valve takes 75%? Like...wtf? Why not 30%?

I don't like it when people describe Valve in glowing terms without mentioning their flaws. Yes, they did a lot of cool things, but let's not forget Valve also did everything possible to not offer refunds to people until they were forced to by the EU. That does not sit well with me at all.

 

[ThankDougie]

Not having enough sales to get into a higher revenue tier is a bit different to not being able to sell your game at all because curation denies entry.

Click to shrink...

How?

Epic is curating content, which affects who can get on board for their revenue sharing plan. Steam is curating content, but taking 30% until you can meet the sales goals they want you to meet. Which is worse? Are they that different in the first place? How visible are the devs who don't make that sales goal?

 

[Deleted member 3058]

Isn't this basically how Steam started and is what Steam has continued to be?

Click to shrink...

Steam had substantially more features than other desktop app storefronts at the time.

 

[Armaros]

Epic curates who gets to be on their platform, which means a select group of developers get their revenue share and not others
Steam chose a sales goal for modifying revenue share, which means only a select group of developers will get special benefits from being on Steam and not others

Sure, you get to appear on Steam, but you don't get preferential treatment unless you hit a sales number they've set for you, which means some indie devs benefit more from Steam than others. That is no different than devs benefiting from Epic's curation choices.

Having a different revenue share on either platform shows that only certain devs benefit on both platforms. Not appearing on Epic is actually about the same as appearing on Steam but not making enough money to get the share Steam has designated certain developers are worth. My point isn't that they are exactly alike, but that both platforms are participating in a kind of curation.

Click to shrink...

So selling nothing because you aren't allowed is the same as taking less per sale compared to someone else.

Twisting the definition of Cuaration so you can equate Steam and Epic is disingenuous and you know it.

 

[Deleted member 10601]

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

Click to shrink...

Even if you filter out the really bad games and asset flips, discovering on Steam would be still bad as there are too many good games coming out on Steam.

 

[ThankDougie]

So selling nothing because you aren't allowed is the same as taking less per sale compared to someone else.

Twisting the definition of Cuaration so you can equate Steam and Epic is disingenuous and you know it.

Click to shrink...

Missed an edit to my post (because I realized I wasn't being clear): My point isn't that they are exactly alike, but that both platforms are participating in a kind of curation.

Those developers missing out on Epic still get to post their content to Steam and GoG and Itch - they can all benefit from existing there. But Steam will still take a larger cut of their money until they make Valve the money they want. That is curation based on how popular you already are - higher revenue share is being limited to a select few.

These devs not on Epic's list don't need Epic to exist, and if Epic is as bad as they say they are, they don't want to be on that platform anyway. Right?

 

[Nooblet]

So the basic gist is that the creator of a bad flash looking game on Steam loves Steam.
Arguing that something that gives more money to devs, while also not changing the price for consumers, is a bad thing, is insanity.

Click to shrink...

What a disingenuous post.This is the game you are trying to disregard.

But I guess that's not up to your standards and the only indie games that are up to your standards are the ones that are pretty much high end indie games made by big indie studios. Because other indie studios, you know the ones that actually are in need of recognition and need to make as much money as they can, are just disregarded by you.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

How?

Epic is curating content, which affects who can get on board for their revenue sharing plan. Steam is curating content, but taking 30% until you can meet the sales goals they want you to meet. Which is worse? Are they that different in the first place? How visible are the devs who don't make that sales goal?

Click to shrink...

1 - That 30% figure isn't the full story, Steam offers unlimited free key generation which the developers take 100% of all profits from, that lowers that 30% figure by a fair bit. Steam also offers way more developer side features to earn that cut, which is mentioned in the OP.

2 - Of course those situations are completely different. Not being able to sell your game at all vs Being able to sell your game but you take a smaller cut in the sales is nowhere near the same thing and it's totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[ThankDougie]

1 - That 30% figure isn't the full story, Steam offers unlimited free key generation which the developers take 100% of all profits from, that lowers that 30% figure by a fair bit. Steam also offers way more developer side features to earn that cut, which is mentioned in the OP.

2 - Of course those situations are completely different. Not being able to sell your game at all vs Being able to sell your game but you take a smaller cut in the sales is nowhere near the same thing and it's totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Click to shrink...

1 - agree to an extent, but key generation has very little to do with Steam. They allow it and you can play via their platform, but that works to their advantage. Beyond that, whoever generates the key is taking a cut right? Like Humble or whoever else? Someone else gets the money, not Valve.

2 - i modified my comment a little to reflect what I mean. See here if interested: https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...r-anyone-by-david-galindo.86246/post-15857451

 

[Deleted member 1476]

People are really trying to equate buying a 3rd party exclusive / timed release to a proper exclusive made by the company that owns the store, huh?

That's such a shit comparison, yet they keep doing it.

 

[Deleted member 10601]

1 - agree to an extent, but key generation has very little to do with Steam. They allow it and you can play via their platform, but that works to their advantage. Beyond that, whoever generates the key is taking a cut right? Like Humble or whoever else? Someone else gets the money, not Valve.

Click to shrink...

The dev or publisher? generates the keys. They can sell them on their own websites or give them to other stores.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

1 - agree to an extent, but key generation has very little to do with Steam. They allow it and you can play via their platform, but that works to their advantage. Beyond that, whoever generates the key is taking a cut right? Like Humble or whoever else? Someone else gets the money, not Valve.

2 - i modified my comment a little to reflect what I mean. See here if interested: https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...r-anyone-by-david-galindo.86246/post-15857451

Click to shrink...

The developer generates the key.

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

 

[jelly]

I wonder if it will be temporary, like in a year when those exclusive games reach steam, people will think Epic Games is pretty pointless and lacking, Steam in better, I can wait etc. same for devs when numbers etc. come in. Exclusives may dwindle and Epic Store is a side show that is there but no big effect overall.

Good article, explains things well.

 

[Instro]

Even if you filter out the really bad games and asset flips, discovering on Steam would be still bad as there are too many good games coming out on Steam.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely, and thus I think the move Epic has made was inevitable in the PC market. Between the tons of good games, and tons of bad games, I can't see a feasible way for devs to make an impact through the Steam storefront when Valve really doesn't do much to market titles(i.e. they don't have game conferences, Nintendo directs, etc., to truly single out games in ways that stand out to consumers.).

Outside of exclusive deals with console manufacturers, it's basically up to the devs to find creative ways to market their titles which may or may not work, or they may not have the resources for. That combined with the Steam/PC population being extremely price senstive, creates a very real problem when it comes to doing well with the PC gaming crowd.

 

[DevilMayGuy]

Nice to see a few devs' perspectives

 

[justiceiro]

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

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

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

 

[Deleted member 8861]

I'd also like to share the perspective from another ERA dev, an amazing post on the PC Era OT by ListeningGarden

Click to shrink...

Amazing post ListeningGarden thank you.

I especially appreciate the mention of currency exchange for less economically advantageous countries.

 

[Deleted member 10601]

Good article, explains things well.

Click to shrink...

I wish people would read the article and not just glancing over it.

 

[WaffleTaco]

This article's only point is that Steam has more features, which is why you shouldn't use Epic's store. You could pretty much apply it to any store besides Steam as to why you should use Steam and not something else.

 

[ThankDougie]

The dev or publisher? generates the keys. They can sell them on their own websites or give them to other stores.

Click to shrink...

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, that's a nice service Steam offers, one which also benefits them. But I get your point. But doesn't the same thing happen with other platforms? Can't you buy from Humble Bundle for instance, but play the game via Steam using a generated key? In that case, Humble gets the shared revenue doesn't it?

 

[Deleted member 1849]

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, that's a nice service Steam offers, one which also benefits them. But I get your point. But doesn't the same thing happen with other platforms? Can't you buy from Humble Bundle for instance, but play the game via Steam using a generated key? In that case, Humble gets the shared revenue doesn't it?

Click to shrink...

The reason why you can do that is because Steam allows developers to generate the keys for Humble and other stores, for free. No free key generation, and there's no Humble. Humble then charges a separate cut for getting on their store (see my previous post).

Notice how indie games almost never get on Humble or other stores with anything but a Steam key, despite many of them being on multiple stores. The reason for this is that other stores don't often offer free key generation.

A developer could just sell a Steam key on their own website, or bundled with the Itch version sold on their website through the Itch.io widget, and get an even better cut than through Humble. In theory, a dev could go through Itch, set the Itch cut to 0%, and take 100% of all profits. Most don't, but there's nothing stopping them.