You are correct in that sense, yes. I just feel that it is a pretty scummy thing to do when the whole premise of Epic's store is better revenue split yet I end up having to pay more because I'm in Australia. Makes no real sense to me.
Also I don't agree with you in saying that Epic needs to do this. They don't, and they very much can do with not doing it but they have chosen to force their storefront down people's throats rather than entice them with better deals. Instead of building a good storefront that offers devs a chance to gain better revenue cuts while offering customers a cheaper deal they opt to force a monopoly (while stating they totally aren't one) on the PC platform and in the long-term more than likely hurt developers because of the backlash at such a acidic move to customers.
I see what you're saying. But better revenue split also need sales if it should have much effect. I guess they think that very few, relatively speaking, would bother using another storefront if its also available on Steam.
You're right that they could offer better deals, like lower the price, but maybe they think this isnt a good strategy in the long run. Lets say that they cut the price on new games by $10 compared to Steam, and Epic cover this cost themself. That would be a good insentive for consumers to buy the game on EGS, but doing so, maybe they condition the consumer to expect all new games to be e.g $10 cheaper, and if they go back to the normal price, maybe it could be seen as a $10 price increase. I dont know. It can be debated how much they need to have the timed exclusive games, but i do think its a good insentive in terms of getting consumers on board at least.
But it still remains to be seen if these timed exclusive games will be a thing or not in the years to come, or if this is just an initial thing to get more traction.
Epic isn't owed a storefront with marketshare.
Yeah, definitely, but i dont think anyone has claimed otherwise though. Same thing that consumers arent owed that all games should be availabe through Steam for example. But if Epic wants to get a bigger marketshare, they need to do something to make that happen. If i was well invested in the Steam ecosystem, i think i would need some good insentives to start using another store front. I think Sweeney is right that simpler features isnt enough to make people change storefronts. Maybe not timed exclusive games are the only way to go, and i can see why some people dont like whats happening, but business wise, i think the move makes sense.
Which could include funding entirely new games to be exclusives (much less bad PR), developing new games internally to be exclusive to their store (They already have a little game called Fortnite but haven't even bothered porting their back catalogue of historical games over), encouraging developers to bring games to their store with strong incentives (they have the lowered cut but could include strong developer support and payments to cover the cost of setting up the port without necessarily making the games 12 month exclusives). They could offer good sales for developers where Epic subsidizes the cost of the discount as a loss leading measure. They already give out free games so why the hell not? Make the Epic Game Store a deal that seems extremely attractive for the right reasons, not like something you're being pressuered to use to get a game that's been on preorder for Steam for a year or got crowdfunded with the explicit promise of a Steam/GoG version. You don't have to 1:1 match every single Steam feature but if you're not offering a huge array of basic features that multiple competings services do, why have you even bothered to launch it? Performing a bait and switch on the storefront including people who preordered physical copies only for your client to be crummy anyway is like salt in the wound.
Encouraging people to use and buy games on a client regularly is an uphill battle but his answer was distracting from the central point of why people are pissed off. His way was a strategy, not the only strategy.
You're right, they could do other stuff as well, so its not the only strategy indeed, but i think time exclusive games is one of the strongest card they could pull in terms of getting consumers to use their storefront. I would guess that Sweeney is aware of that not all people dont like this, so i dont think hes trying to deflect or distract from the issue. I think he just mean that they have to do something, and he feel that this is one of the best ways to do it. Not that its the only thing that they can do.
Its also true that could also drop the price on the games as an insentive to get consumers on board, as you mention, and cover that price drop difference, so that the developers get the same amount of money. But maybe Epic think this is a bad idea in the long run, that they dont want to set up a premise that games are e.g $10 cheaper on their store, and suddently they need to "raise" the price $10 at a later time.
Does Epic have any problem getting developers/publishers on board to their store by the way? (In regards to what you say about covering the cost to set up the port). I always viewed the timed exclusive games as a move to get consumers on board their store, not developers. From what i can see, for developers, it would be a win-win situation regardless, since it just mean that their game is available on another storefront, and they get a bigger cut if games are being bought through Epic's store. And after all, theres already many games available on their store thats also on Steam etc., its only a handful of games that are timed exclusive, as far as i know.