Maybe less investment in trying to monopolise the market and more investment in developing their shopping platform so it’s not a smouldering turd.
We made the shittiest thing and nobody likes it. We’re all out of ideas.
Yeah, if I’m reading that right they’re complaining that they’re stuck at phase one of enshitification - lose money on aquiring users. The reason behind that is they’re not able to monopolize the market for their games. “These damn mobile stores won’t let us turn the corner and put the clamps on our users. Fix it please.”
If you count all of Steam’s features (Steam Input, Big Picture Mode, Proton etc), then Epic has decades of catching up to do. The problem is that usually executives will choose the “easy way out” of problems, so let’s just give free games instead of making a good platform.
Sure isn’t profitable from me, I haven’t bought shit from them.
That’s one interesting thing about this: They trained the players so hard to associate their store with the free weekly giveaways and only the free weekly giveaways, that’s all everyone uses the client for now, and never mentally considers it to be usable for anything else.
The effect is pervasive, too. Games factually have not released if they’re epic-exclusive. They’re not discoverable on PC, as nobody would ever imagine checking the Epic catalogue for a game they’re looking for. That’s not what you open Epic for, it’s those 1-2 free weekly games and nothing else.
In their bid to vie for developers not consumers they went so far too far that they have managed to alienate the concept of “selling games to players” in the consumers’ minds, therefor making their store automatically unable to compete at its main intent.
Mind you, there are far more problems with it. Among which is that despite having so little in there, discoverability and navigation are downright terrible! It’s an interesting lesson for frontend/UI design I imagine.
This. I visit the site every week to claim the free games. If a game is epic exclusive, I consider it not released yet.
Protip: isthereanydeal.com has an RSS feed which will also alert you to other givaways.
I got Death Stranding…
…It was free. The Epic client runs under Bottles in its own isolated sandbox, so it can’t spy on me.
If it’s free it’s for me, if you have to pay no way.
You never bought a game made with the Unreal Engine?
How exactly does paying for unreal games make the epic games store profitable? Epic would still be getting that money even if the store didn’t exist.
Yeah that’s the point… They said they never bought anything from epic games. I was wondering if they really never bought an unreal game. Why are people butthurt about that question?!
When you buy from Taco Bell, you’re also buying a product made by a farming company, but you’re not buying from that farm.
Same with EGS/UE. People are happy to buy an Epic Games product, but they won’t buy it from EG, because their store is shit.
There aren’t that many comparable situations where a company both makes a product and has a storefront, without that product being exclusive to that storefront. Perhaps buying Honda, but only used, never from a dealership?
But when someone says they don’t buy Honda shit but than buy a used Honda, wouldn’t you say that’s weird?
The Epic Game Store was in part trying to get money in when the Unreal Engine was falling behind with Unity’s popularity. The hatred many people show for Epic Games is irrational, in my opinion. Especially when you consider that all the “arguments” against Epic Games are the same people had against Steam when it was new. It doesn’t really make sense and just seems like hate for the sake of hating.
It just seems so much like hypocrisy. Everytime Steam brought a new feature, like achievements, cards, communities, etc. people were falling all over themselves hating Steam for it.
And know they hate Epic for not offering these features?
The same with exclusive titles. People regularly hated on Steam for having a monopoly on the market and that they therefore could take increasingly bigger cuts from developers. Epic takes less money in exchange for timed exclusivity and many developers like that they get more money for their games. Why do gamers dislike that?
If you dislike Honda as a company (for subscription key fobs, or crappy warranty practices, say), you can still like the cars without giving the company a single dollar, by buying used cars. I suppose this doesn’t quite work, because EG is still getting money for UE.
Perhaps an inversion: Amazon Basics are usually trash, and many consider giving Amazon money distasteful, yet the storefront is definitely quite effective and the shipping fast. Denigrating one while using the other is common.
As for the different treatment, the people behind UE seem to make decent decisions (especially in the light of Unity’s recent decisions), while the people behind EGS have done nothing but aweful anti-consumer crap. They’re both owned by the same company, but behave differently, so different treatment seems reasonable.
That being said, there’s lots of people in gaming communities who whinge just to whinge. No changing that. I don’t get much of the hate for Steam, but I do agree that having a monopoly is bad, no matter how benevolent Valve is right now. EGS should have been the silver bullet to that situation, but the silver was arsenic, the bullet was hollow point, and they tried to shoot us instead of Steam.
When Epic stops trying to kill user fteedoms and divide the market, and instead make a competitive service, they’ll get far less hate. They’ll still get hate, that’s gamers, but winning by damaging the market is always bad.
deleted by creator
They had some amazing coupons a few years ago, I remember buying Jedi: Fallen Order for like $4 USD
Oh what a suprise. Maybe… Just maybe…spend some bucks on developing the store to be viable(!) competition to steam. And not just a ghastly shit-shop, where people only exist because of the freebies and partially because of the exclusives (i pirate the exclusives. Fuck exclusives).
Even GOG galaxy is a better client/store and they don’t have the same budget.
Epic sucks sweaty, hairy monkeyballs. And i would welcome competition for the apex.
Did they get a shopping cart yet? I remember not being able to buy multiple games at once, but I just gave up on that store so no idea how it is now
They do now, yeah
deleted by creator
I do through playnite. Using their own launcher for anything else than playing a game is horrible
I get the free games via the site but I dont use windows so I’ve never even tried to play them. I’d rather support valve who have really went all in on Linux gaming.
I know it is possible to get some of epic ones working via lutris but I’m not that bothered to be honest.
For what it’s worth, the Heroic Games launcher works out of the box for me on Mint, it also handles GOG
Also works with Amazon and the free games you get with Prime
What? I’ve never heard of this? I have prime, where do I get my free shit?
Here: https://gaming.amazon.com/intro The games kinda suck though
You can also log into your Epic/Gog/Origin/Ubisoft accounts via Lutris and install the games via that.
For anyone interested in running epic games on linux, try heroic launcher.
I was up for a Steam competitor. I signed up for the Epic store a few years back. Tried to get the first free game. It wasn’t available in my region despite being plastered all over the store in my region. The exact same thing happened the next month. Both of those games were available on Steam in my region at some pretty low prices by then.
Then, Epic started paying for exclusivity, making games not available in my region at all. I had at least deleted their stupid app by then anyway. Fuck Epic entirely.
I was up for a Steam competitor.
GOG Galaxy has been good even before Epic Store existed.
My only complaint about GOG is that developers treat it as an afterthought. Plenty of games that stop receiving updates, or are pulled out of the store entirely, while the Steam version remains maintained. Also, the required lack of DRM makes multiplayer online games relatively scarce.
GOG is great. I have an account and have bought a few games there when I think of it. I just wish they had Souls games.
Used to have similar problem with Steam back in the day.
Edit: I like how some people disagree that i experienced something by downvote. It’s not like i can change it or something 😅 👌
deleted by creator
Gotta love the diehard linux users promoting their preferred OS on a topic even slightly related.
Man, I enjoy Linux too, but I cannot see how its related to the post.
No thanks
Oh that is why this proton thing makes tons of games runnable on Linux now?
Yes, both from Valve working hard on compatibility and game devs testing against it
Thanks for the tip but no
Which destro would you recommend? I’m kind of sick of Windows.
deleted by creator
Or just use KDE instead of Gnome. It’s such a terrible DE anyway.
Nobara has, for me, been the most plug and play no headache distro I’ve touched, ever.
What brand of graphics card do you have? If it’s Nvidia Pop!_OS will likely work best. If you have an AMD card I’ve heard good things about EndeavorOS.
Also, feel free to shop around for a desktop environment (DE) you like, which controls the look and how things are organized. While distros have a default, it’s pretty easy to swap them. I personally use KDE Plasma (the same DE the Steam Deck uses) with Pop!_OS
If you want a Couch Gaming Station I recommend you to look at ChimeraOS. Linux first that boots directly to Stream Big Picture (since it’s based on SteamOS) and it supports emulators and Epic Game Store.
On my old i5-8700T with qUHD630 it pretty much was a install, reboot, login to Steam and start playing. My Wireless Xbox Controller USB dongle was plug’n’play.
How’s the performance on Nvidia cards? Most benchmarks that I saw are people using AMD cards.
deleted by creator
I generally prefer AMD, how are they for Linux?
Great! You don’t even need to install any drivers. It just works.
Sorry, I’ll wait some more. I tried two times getting back to Linux as I see the potential. It didn’t work. I’m gonna stick to windows until some problems will be fixed, or Microsoft further enshittifies itself.
Maybe just uh…
Put your games on steam?
Shocking literally no one, the game store that took a shot at the king with store that (initially) didn’t have baseline stuff like reviews and a cart, and tried to get by on giving away product and paying a bunch of money to make stuff exclusive isn’t doing so hot financially.
Epic Games launcher/store is nothing more than Tencent spyware using “free games” as bait and masquerading as a Steam competitor.
Well. It’s required for downloading Unreal Engine for development. Not really sure about spyware.
Yeah I am not buying that spyware argument either.
Here’s some info about the spyware that they had in Epic Games that was allegedly “fixed”
You can sell access to your PC for the free games from Epic if you choose to. I choose not to install their garbage app, because I have plenty of other games and I don’t need their free bait.
Once trust is lost, it’s hard to get back.
That shit is 4 years old already and it is fixed no more outrage.
But you do you.
See it’s not all negative news on the internet.
Using dishonest tactics to claw away market share won’t work with gamers. Steam got to where it is by good will and good prices.
Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.
Well, eventually.
When Steam was first released, the running joke was “steaming pile of shit”. It was slow, unreliable and only a couple of shades of green away from the worst color in the world. People complained about the birth of “always online” games and about paying full price but not even getting a box with it.
It’s not exactly unassailable now either. It’s my platform of choice as a user but for indie developers, the 30% cut is brutal and last I used it, the Steamworks SDK was pretty rough. The app itself also has a lot of legacy bloat like a built in MP3 player.
It’s ahead of the rest but I think “good will, good prices and good features” might be an overly romantic take on “it’s where all my games already are”.
the 30% cut is brutal
This part always confuses me. When Steam started allowing non-Valve games on their storefront, 30% was considered a bargain compared to selling your games at retail.
Valve is constantly looking for ways to help the customer, just in their own weird ass way. Having linux as a competitive option to windows and being able to refund/return digital games, as well as a built in mod searcher and loader being some of the things they brought to the platform because Valve employees themselves are gamers and want their platform to be useful towards gamers needs
Refunding/returning digital games is an outcome of a lawsuit if I remember correctly
I think they do hell the consumer. And agree it’s weird. But would argue against that being their goal with the caveat that what I’m about to say makes no real difference to anything.
I think they’re looking to increase profits first and foremost. However, because they’re not answerable to shareholders, they understand that the best way to do this is by building loyalty and ensuring “stickiness” loyalty. ¹
It’s still about money. They just understand that the safest way to make it is by having a long term view and not burning people.
I think its both tbh. Money is certainly a factor, we live in a Capatalist society, the more money you have, the more you can do and influence, so even companies with the best of intentions will focus on profits. But with the shit Valve does, like the Steam Deck being a Linux machine (and thus open source), and working through the legal hassle of designing and making developers agree to digital item returns/refunds, I’m thoroughly convinced Valve generally does just want to make the gaming scene better as well because the employees themselves are also gamers
I think they just understand whatost executibes are too greedy / shit sighted / stupid to understand. Doing what’s right for consumers drives revenue. It can be good for the consumer and motivated by profit. They’re not mutually exclusive.
the 30% cut is brutal
Reportedly Epic’s 12% barely covers costs and would not if they included transaction fees. 20% seems to be the bare minimum if you want a store to actually have good service, and then I’m giving Valve additional credit for sinking boatloads of money into general infrastructure, in the long term Proton alone is worth those 10%. Much unlike the rest of the stores (exception GOG) which take the same 30% and are run by humongous multinationals.
…and then there’s itch.io. If you’re a small and scrappy indie very much an option: They’re also small and scrappy. And they’ll probably shout at you if you try to upload a 20G game I very much doubt their servers would survive an AAA launch. OTOH, reportedly their average revenue split is 8% (customers can choose).
The difference is that Steam sells a ton of copies every single day. The vast majority of Valve’s fortune has come from that fee. People jump to defend Steam but it’s already been established by lawsuits against other major corporations that a 30% cut is mostly driven by greed.
The 30% cut was industry standard for digital distribution for years. Google, Apple, and numerous other players all took 30% as standard.
That being said, Steam hasn’t taken a flat 30% for years now - their standard agreement starts at 30%, decreases to 25% after the first $10m in sales, then decreases further to 20% after $50m.
Furthermore, Valve has done more in terms of providing services, APIs/libraries, and end-user features (all with no additional fee to the developers or consumers) than any other game storefront has. I’d say they more than justify their cut.
Industry standard by massive corporations synonymous with corporate greed. Boy am I glad the fee decreases after $10m in sales. That will go a long way with helping out indie devs.
It’s okay to like Steam because they’ve provided us with a good way of purchasing and playing games. I like Steam but we don’t have defend things that are obviously greedy.
Well, eventually.
When Steam was first released, the running joke was
Has anything ever worked perfectly when first released?
“it’s where all my games already are.”
My pet theory is this was realized by epic and so the only reason they give games away is to “help” users build a library they won’t want to “leave behind” for another store platform. Once they reach the market share they were aiming for I fully expect the practice to stop.
Moreover, just like that guy, Epic thinks that’s the only thing that matters, or at least the biggest issue. The idea that gamers might not use them because their service is actually just worse seems to have never crossed their minds in any serious fashion.
That is their exact strategy…
Yes, there’s bloat from old features, but there’s also quality tools built into Steam, such as Steam Input and Proton.
If that was true, EA would have been dead in the water 12 years ago.
Didn’t EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?
Remember Valve is the company and Steam is the storefront/launcher.
Epic is the company, EGS is the storefront/launcher.
EA is the company, Origin is (was?) the storefront/launcher.
Didn’t EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?
Technically no. EA now just calls it “The EA App”
If Mass Effect Legendary Edition actually included ME3’s multiplayer I might’ve considered installing Origin again.
Nope. Star Wars Squadrons (which I got from Epic, BTW) required me to download and install Origin first. I’d be salty as fuck about that if all parties involved hadn’t already guaranteed that it was a game that I was never going to pay for anyway.
I have a crazy idea for Epic. Instead of paying a fortune for exclusives, leverage the lower 12% cut and have game publishers sell for less (so that the publisher makes the same amount on Steam and Epic)
And GOG. They used to have several games up there, and then delisted them.
Publishers sets their own prices though.
So why can’t they sell their game for $56 on Epic and $70 on Steam? They’d make about the same money per sale on each?
Most likely reason, contracts.
Example Nike sales shoes directly at the same price as footlocker. Why dont they under cut footlocker? They have a contracts that says they won’t under cut footlocker
There could br an issue like that but well you can make new contracts
But price disparities already exist in other places sometimes. Like YT premium using the App store (due to the 30% cut) and everywhere else.
it depends on what the contracts say
If the developer chooses to do so themselves then it’s likely ok, but forcing the developer to do so likely violates some sort of law.
I imagine that when Epic instituted it’s lower percentage they hoped that developers would sell exclusively on their platform for higher profits. Instead the developers decided to sell on both platforms and just make a larger percentage on the Epic sales. From the developer perspective it would have been wise in the long run to lower prices so that Epic could grow, but that hurts their short term profits and also stymied Epic’s potential.
If Epic’s store grew to truly rival Steam more developers might have jumped ship, but to do so prematurely would be losing a large portion of the potential customers.
Ultimately Epic had to develop a full Steam clone quickly while all Steam had to do was not suck for the end user.
Why would the developer sell at a loss to help Epic out? What’s in it for the developer?
Epic paid $146 to make borderlands exclusive to epic. The game kind of flopped.
Completely untrue. It was a major success and brought record numbers of new customers to the store, which is the main metric pursued by Epic.
Well it shouldn’t be at a loss. As the person I responded to pointed out, Epic had a lower fee than Steam so the developer can sell on Epic for less than they would on Steam and make the same amount of money.
Doing so wouldn’t be at a loss, but it wouldn’t make as much profit as possible.
If the developers did choose to sell on Epic for less than it would bolster the Epic store and potentially lead to more people moving to Epic.
If Steam’s fee is 30% and Epic’s is 15% the developer could sell on Steam for $70 and make $49 and they could sell on Epic for $60 to make $51. That’s a 4% increase in profits.
If the Epic store takes off and a large enough user base switches they could maybe increase the Epic price to $62.5 which would result in an additional 4% increase in profits.
Epic’s deal is that they’re offering a lower rate, but the developers aren’t sharing the benefits of that to help Epic grow. If they did the long term profits would likely exceed the short term.
Again, why would the developer care about making Epic grow? It’s the store’s responsibility to offer good service, you don’t see Nintendo trying to help out Target or anything like that now do ya?
hing like that now do ya?
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or if you really don’t understand. If you don’t understand I’d be happy to elaborate.
EGS losing money has been great for gamers, as they continue to give away free games in an attempt to claw any marketshare. Gamers continue to win as long as this situation lasts. But reading these comments, nobody seems to recognize this.
Gamers lose when the store shuts down and you lose access to all of the games you got for free, or worse actually paid for.
Yeah but Unreal Tournament goes back on the shelf
Is it actually not profitable or is this one of those tax writeoff bullshit things where it makes them money in some indirect way
Most likely actually non profitable. With crapton of Chinese cash, they can keep paying studios more of a cut than Steam, giveaway games, pay for exclusivity. Their goal right now isn’t to make money, but to take market share
Would that be because it is still a pale imitator not remotely competitive with steam?
