446
Epic Games Store is offering developers 100% of revenue for six months of exclusivity
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
446 points (94.8% liked)
PCGaming
6527 readers
4 users here now
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So is it just me or does every game that becomes a epic exclusive never do as well as they should. i think most game developers realize this, which is why epic is desperate to get developers on their failing launcher. maybe they should try offering all the things steam does. regardless i cant switch because i own too many games on steam, im locked in.
It’s because PC gamers overwhelmingly will just ignore the game until it comes to steam, but by the time it comes to steam it’s been 6 months - 1 year and all the hype around the game has died.
People have been voting with their wallets and not rewarding anti-competitive behavior for once
thats what i was hinting at. and im not totally happy about epic ruining launches over trying to be a replacement for a, in my opinion, much better system which offers much more ever if they developers don't use all the features. i do wish steam would add a lower tier which takes less of the profit from indie developers that hardly use any of these features.
Only buying on Steam is anti-competitive
Not really. Steam is not forcing exclusives on their platform. Them providing a better service doesn’t mean the users are anti-competitive.
EGS explicitly pays developers to not release on other platforms. That’s anti-competitive
Exclusive is the medium not the store
A pc game on epic is still a pc game. I haven’t heard of epic preventing devs from releasing on Xbox
EGS is a platform, Steam is a platform. They are both stores and their own ecosystems.
They are paying for forced exclusives to their platform. I’m not going to use a different platform even on my same device because it’s anti-competitive for pc gaming.
You aren’t going to promote competition because it’s anti competitive
If a game was offered on both platforms do you think people are more likely to get it on Epic than Steam? If not then they have to be exclusive to their store
That’s not my problem. That’s still being anti-competitive. If one platform is significantly better (eg steam) then the competition needs to offer a reason to buy from them. The problem is that EGS has decided that the only way to give users a reason to use their store has been to make sure the game isn’t available anywhere else.
The users are able to make the choice to not support poor business tactics and they have. People do not buy from EGS, due to a plethora of reasons, one of which is likely that they are extremely anti-competitive and buy out games.
They've also been acquiring successful games and forcing a bunch of Epic exposure and "features" on the users.
A store doesn't have the right to my business just because it exists. If I started a PC game store and charged twice as much as Steam or Epic would you purchase from me just to support competition?
A business needs to give me a reason to purchase from them. If the best reason to purchase from Epic is to give them a participation award then no thank you.
it's not. choosing to buy on steam because it's a better experience to you than egs is exactly the result we want from competition. they competed for your favor, steam won, and egs lost. personally, sometimes i buy on gog because i like its features better, especially the offline installer and lack of drm, but even if steam won all rounds that would still be competition, they're just good at it.
anti-competitive measures are the ones that try to abuse an existing market position to take that choice away from you and force you to go one way or another. if you really wanted a grasp on valve, you could argue for example that the steamdeck is anti-competitive on the market of game stores, because it makes using competing game stores inconvenient (even though you absolutely can do it, i have played uplay games on my steamdeck, and could probably easily install egs as well, i just don't have any reason to try). exclusivity is also a very clear-cut anti-competitive measure, because it just cleanly takes choice away from the end user and forces them to go with a specific launcher, or worse, specific hardware in some cases. but just being better than everyone, or as a consumer choosing to go with the best option is not anti-competitive, it's just winning the competition
So only buying coffee from the store I like is anti competitive?
not what that means
What was wild to me is when Kingdom Hearts dropped on Epic and no one cared. Should have been the hot topic for at least a few days but... nothing.
That's probably also partially due to how crazy overpriced it is though
Kingdom Hearts was a double whammy of poor decision making on Squeenix's part. Not only did they launch on EGS, where most PC players aren't going to care about it, they launched it at an absurd price. They were selling the HD collection for $50 when you could walk over to GameStop or Target and get the PS4 version for $20.
When you finally make a game like KH available to a new audience, and no one gives a shit... You've done something horribly wrong.
I 100000% believe your comment on the pre-existing library is why they give free games away weekly. They want you to build a library that you then won't want to move from which is exactly why I too don't like being forced to buy things on another game store. I don't like exclusives no matter where they are, it's anticompetitive bullshit.
Why choose one over the other when you can use something like Playnite or similar to track all your collections across multiple services?
i work too much to spend time looking into systems like this. also i don't use windows.
Then Heroic
Hades
I didn't see anyone talking about Hades until it released on Steam
It spent it's early access there but it was definitely talked about at least in the places I lurked. It's Supergiant games tho, they do nothing but bangers.
Steam has a really loyal base that for some reason think buying from a different store is akin to buying a whole new platform
I’ll avoid games on Steam as much as I can to foster competition but breaking into that user base is difficult
the reason for that is because steam isn't just a launcher. if you don't use steam you might think so, because giving you a play button, managing downloads, and maybe tracking achievements is all other platforms do. steam, on the other hand, is an entire toolkit built to simplify everything in gaming -- whether what you seek is community spaces, a workshop to easily install mods and other community content, one-click linux compatibility, in-home streaming, easy game invites and in-game chat with your friends, or a plethora of other features, buying on steam vs non-steam is usually a massive difference.
i bought gta v on disk back when it released, as opposed to my friends who only joined a few years later and had the bandwidth to just buy the steam version and download it, and whenever we played together they just had so much of an easier experience.
the reason steam's user base is so loyal is because steam provides things that actually matter to them, and valve spent decades ensuring that they provide the best damn experience possible. epic games, on the other hand, had one surprise success with fortnite, and decided they want the game store market to turn it into a long-term revenue stream, but what they forgot to consider is to give people the same experience steam provides. egs has a fundamentally selfish design, it literally only caters to epic and only does the bare minimum for anyone else.
so if your proposition is that people should ditch that platform that goes out of its way to provide for them and instead be content with the bare minimum because the company behind that platform is evil because *checks notes* it's too popular and makes it hard for other corporations to act as middlemen and collect the game store tax themselves instead, i don't think you'll be able to convince too many people.
Yeah, I dislike that about it too
It’s a store, it shouldn’t be anything else
But AFAIK GoG is the only one like that, even then some of their games aren’t
so do you think the other features in steam shouldn't exist, or that they should be split off from the store into a different service?
I would prefer split up
Cool. I'm going to open my own store that costs twice as much as Steam and has none of the features. I'll let you know when it's ready so you can purchase from me in order to "foster competition".
I’ll hold you to it
Its is buying a new platform, rather than have my games in 1 platform, they would be in 2. also steam offers much more (at a greater cost to developers) then epic. i also only use linux, which is a not hard at all with steam.
I buy from valve mostly for the Linux bit... they've played a major role in lifting the Linux desktop graphics drivers to the point where they're actually not just usable but good.
I also only use Linux; I don’t need to change my device at all to switch between Steam, Lutris, or Heoric
i hope you realize the only reason you can actually game on linux is because valve decided microsoft has to not have a monopoly, because they got spooked by the windows store. i tried gaming on linux in the pre-proton days, it was a hot mess, the advent of proton and dxvk was a massive jump in terms of compatibility. and nowadays valve is ensuring that people do in fact give a shit about proton with the steamdeck, its 1.5-2 million users give a pretty strong reason for devs to keep their games compatible, and anything that runs on a steamdeck runs on linux in general as well.
it doesn't matter whether you run non-steam games through lutris or heroic, you're still running on the translation layers built by valve to keep linux gaming viable
I am aware, I can still use other stores
I wouldn’t want Valve to have a monopoly on Linux anymore than on Windows
Due to advancements pushed by Valve, these days I'm actually surprised when a game doesn't run under Linux.
Even when he worked for Microsoft, Gabe Newell was literally the person that made PC gaming viable.
i dont know what lutris or heoric are. i wish i had more time to figure that stuff out. maybe one day.
I had a few games on Impulse but my account vanished when it got sold to Gamestop so I can understand people being worried about buying games on other platforms. One reason I like GoG due to offline installers
The problem is that none of these other launchers offer features like Steam Input, Proton, in-home streaming, a good overlay, and the Workshop. Steam competes by making their platform the most attractive to customers.
Alternatives to Steam need to find their own niche. GOG is doing well in their niche of fixing up older games and selling them DRM-free. The only "killer feature" EGS has is that they take a smaller cut from publishers. But end users don't care about that, because it doesn't translate to lower prices. I can chose between spending $60 for the same game on Steam or EGS, but the EGS version comes without all the extra features I listed above.