Epic Games Boss Says They'll Stop Doing Exclusives If Steam Gives Developers More Money (kotaku.com) 239
thegarbz writes: Epic games is no stranger to controversy recently. The Fortnight developer late last year launched its own games store in direct competition with Steam. Unlike Steam, however, Epic only claims a 12% fee for hosting a game on their store vs Steam's 30%. What has angered many is not the competition but rather Epic's strategy of nabbing up last minute Epic store exclusives sometimes right before launch even after customers already pre-ordered the game on other platforms. Last night Epic CEO Tim Sweeney tweeted that he will end exclusive agreements if Steam price matched the Epic store. From Kotaku: "If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached," Sweeney wrote, "Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam." thegarbz adds: While initially this looks like Epic is playing a good guy, there are many reasons to be skeptical. As covered previously Sweeney has aspirations for Epic to become the next Google or Facebook and it is unlikely that the practice of drawing people to your platform through exclusive agreements would be dropped, especially if Steam drops prices to increase competition. More likely the CEO is attempting to improve his company's image in a gaming community which has seen every Epic store exclusive game review bombed across other platforms, positively in the case of Metro Exodus, and negatively in the case of games like Borderlands 2, the squeal of which will be an Epic store exclusive.
Negative squeals (Score:2)
Gotta hate those negative squeals!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed I was playing on lunch and passed up on the mission that results in The Bane SMG.
Re:Negative squeals (Score:4, Informative)
The name of the game isn't Fortnight either.
Some crappy reviewer wrote it using grammarly, accepting every correction, and then the "editor" didn't even bother to check.
Re: (Score:3)
Some crappy reviewer wrote it using grammarly
Nope. Actually I just made a typo because I posted it at 1am while drinking. Sorry. I didn't actually spell check the submission at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Actually I just made a typo because I posted it at 1am while drinking.
This confirms something I've long suspected.
Re: (Score:2)
That editors don't exist or that I'm often posting on my pajamas?
Re: (Score:2)
That the quality of Slashdot summaries indicates inebriation on the part of the editor and/or submitter. :P
Since this is the internet, I'll clarify that I'm joking.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Fortnite: Battle Royale. Fortnite: Save the World was the original game. It sucked assssssssssssssss. Then they turned it into a Battle Royale and while it still sucks asssssssssssss, it's popular among tweens. I guess they also have Fortnite: Creative Mode now or soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Imperial and cultural superiority mostly.
It does help though that the language is very forgiving, with meaning easily conveyed even when spelling and grammar are absent.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this:
a gaming community which has seen every Epic store exclusive game review bombed across other platforms, positively in the case of Metro Exodus, and negatively in the case of games like Borderlands 2
What the hell does it mean for a game review to be bombed positively on another platform?! Does that mean the game was lauded by everyone, but only when it was on the other platform? Does it mean it was flooded with fake reviews on the other platform trying to lower its overall recommendation? And does bombing negatively on other platforms mean Borderlands 2 was reviewed well on the Epic store but not any other outlets such as Steam or something?
I like to think I'm quite good at guessing inten
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell does it mean for a game review to be bombed positively on another platform?!
Click the link. For a game that's not actually on sale it on the day of the announcement that it would be an exclusive got a shitload of reviews, all thumbs up, all passively aggressively calling out the fact that they aren't at all happy. There's of course a good reason here. It's not the developers or the awesome game's fault that the publishers are dicks, and you can't review publishers.
Here's a couple:
Recommended:
"Best game you'll wait a year to buy. "
"Perfekt Game its really good. BUT FUCK EPIC STORE."
Re: Linux? (Score:2)
If it says "requires steam account" I move on. Thank goodness for DRM-free GOG, which has quite a few linux titles.
Steam is mostly a drm scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. But if you're happy with games from other sources then you never need to find out.
Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Get competition to reduce their profitability
2) Wait for value of said competition to drop
3) Buy competitor
Maybe I'm just too cynical.
Re: (Score:3)
Steam is the giant in the field right now, not Epic. Even if it was to match Epic on price, it would remain a giant.
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not reducing their income by 18%, it's reducing their income per sale by 60%.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh.
Epic has a store with 3rd party games to be purchased, where Epic gets a percentage.
Valve has a store called Steam with 3rd party games to be purchased, where Valve gets a percentage.
Epic produces games, which they make available through their store.
Valve produces games, which they make available through their store.
Epic offers discounts to 3rd party developers in exchange for exclusivity of distribution, cutting out other stores such as Steam.
How are they not directly in competition again? Or are you
Re: (Score:2)
So if I run a brewpub I'm not competing with other pubs? Study hard and you might make it to imbecile.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a retard. Epic sells games developed by and published by 3rd parties. It's a store, like Steam. They just give publishers a much, much bigger slice of the pie. They also pay for timed exclusives, and I don't blame any publisher for taking that. When I play a game, I play a game. I don't play a store. i'd much rather more of my money go to the publisher and then, hopefully, to the developer. The middle man doesn't deserve 30 fucking percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not, actually. Valve doesn't set their cut arbitrarily, there are tons of costs associated with hosting tens of thousands of games for millions of users (especially since Steam does far more than just host the games for download). Cutting income by 60% may well make Steam unprofitable. Epic doesn't care (yet) because they don't need their store to be profitable: they can support it with Fortnite money until it has a large userbase (on both developer and user side), and then raise prices (plus they als
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a fundamental flaw with that plan. Step 3 requires them to be able to buy the competitor.
Valve is privately held and GabeN is the controlling shareholder. As long as it makes money - even a reduced amount - I doubt he'd sell.
Epic is pursuing the "throw money at growth even at a loss until we're giants" approach that Amazon took. The problem with that tactic is it only works out well if there is no giant already in the space you're trying to grow in. Valve is already there and they're not being dicks. Epic's going to hit a brick wall with this at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are throwing money at anything. On the contrary, they are taking the money and infrastructure that they built up via Fortnite, a game which will eventually become old, and transitioning it into a new line of business. Valve did well before steam, but steam is what made them mega profitable. This is a logical pivot for Epic to make, and the right time to do it, while people are still logging into their launcher. I seriously doubt they are loosing much on this, probably exactly the oppo
Re: (Score:2)
> I seriously doubt they are loosing much on this, probably exactly the opposite.
I wonder about that, because in order to secure exclusives they would have had to either pay for them or give some crazy concessions to get those exclusives. 2K isn't going to give a smaller online store an exclusive for 6 months out of the goodness of their hearts. Think back when Sony was pushing Blu-Ray as the DVD replacement tech, they didn't just cut licensing costs, they also gave financial concessions (bribes) to th
Re: (Score:2)
The site is clogged with that crap.
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or.. Developer is tired of giving Valve 30% of their revenue for doing jack shit.
To be fair, Valve actually does offer a lot via the Steam platform [steamgames.com]. Aside from the storefront, payment processing, and distribution, Steam is a huge framework for doing friends lists, game reviews, chatting, achievements, cloud saves and storage, forums, licensing, key management, game updates and patching, matchmaking, anti-cheat support, and probably more.
Whether or not that's objectively worth 30% off the top of sales I can't say, but it must be noted that Epic currently doesn't do most of it. Personally I also think Valve gets bonus points for having no relationship with Tencent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the storefront, payment processing, and distribution, Steam is a huge framework for doing friends lists, game reviews, chatting, achievements, cloud saves and storage, forums, licensing, key management, game updates and patching, matchmaking, anti-cheat support, and probably more.
EGS is a store, payment processor, downloader/updater, license/key managemer, etc. It has friends lists too, and while I have no clue if you can actually chat with friends it works for what I use it for - inviting a friend to a game or joining their game. We chat via other means. Steam chat (text or voice) is trash tier. Steam's reviews are fucking memes and are filled with political bullshit, agenda driven review bombing or pumping, and Valve and developers are constantly having to tweak the filtering/
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
It has friends lists too
It does not. But that's just one thing. There's actually a good long comparison out on the internet if you want look at it. How about cloud saves, screenshots, mods, workshops, the list just goes on and on. Just because you don't use features doesn't mean they aren't there.
Steam's reviews are fucking memes and are filled with political bullshit, agenda driven review bombing or pumping
The only games which have been review bombed ironically are those linked to Epic store in some way. And Steam actively filters on the review bombs.
and Valve and developers are constantly having to tweak the filtering/scoring algorithms to handle that
How horrible. Someone actually preventing a large online platform from becoming a cesspool. I wonder if Epic will go the same route if it ever gets popular.
Steam's forums are the same way.
Now your biases are just showing. For me I've never seen anything political on a forum and every question i've ever asked got answered satisfactorily. That's my observer bias.
The epic store is a piece of shit not worth running on my computer. Fortunately there are no Epic exclusives as all their titles are also available on The Pirate Bay.
Re: (Score:2)
First line should say "it does *now*"
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
. It has friends lists too, and while I have no clue if you can actually chat with friends it works for what I use it for - inviting a friend to a game or joining their game.
EGS has very few of the features that Steam has. In time it might, but currently it does not.
Steam chat (text or voice) is trash tier. Steam's reviews are fucking memes and are filled with political bullshit, agenda driven review bombing or pumping, and Valve and developers are constantly having to tweak the filtering/scoring algorithms to handle that, and then users are constantly crying about censorship because they can't shit on a game and get people to not buy it.
Just because you don't like that feature of Steam doesn't mean that other people don't like it.
Steam's forums are the same way. The store selling you a thing shouldn't also have a hand in policing the discussion around that thing. There are plenty of better places for it anyway.
No one is forcing anyone to use Steam's forums. People can use Reddit if they want; however, some people like Steam's forums and Steam does need to police their own forums.
I fucking hate achievements. They led to cosmetic farming in games like TF2 and that led to loot crates and excessive monetization.
You could just ignore achievements if you want.
Cloud saves and storage are pointless. What do you need that for? Do you not have local storage? Do you not have a NAS? Do you not have backups?
Not everyone has a sane backup strategy; not everyone has a NAS. Everyone should have both.
Steam is butt tier for 30% off the top. It's absurd.
It seems your entire post is that you don't like/need these features therefore they are not important to anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
It has friends lists too
Nope.
Steam's reviews are fucking memes and are filled with political bullshit
And Epic's reviews? Oh wait, they don't have any.
Steam's forums are the same way.
And how are Epic's? Oh wait, they don't have any.
Cloud saves and storage are pointless.
Some of us are able to buy more than one computer. Or appreciate the free backup service.
Also, Epic's store has this wonderful feature of minimizing the non-Epic-store game you are playing when Epic decides to send you an announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud saves and storage are pointless
This is where you lost me. You went from making fairly valid points to being a "must be this techy to ride" elitist. While I personally quite like cloud saves, I don't however think they are worth 30% of the revenue of a sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not that's objectively worth 30% off the top of sales
It should be noted that the 30% cut is only the starting point. The rate goes down as sales increase.
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
The purpose of publishers is to take the work of distributing the game from the developer, rather than having the developer having to do 100% of all sales. Without Steam, the large number of indie games would be on completely random websites, decentralized, and hard to find - perhaps Undertale wouldn't be as popular.
So, let's say I got interested in a game from a random developer. Perhaps one of the old Soleau Software games, or maybe one from Moraff. Both are well known shareware producers back in the day.
Of those two developers, I can only buy the old stuff from one of them. If the other developer had something like Steam or a secondary publisher that still sends money over, then that game could still be purchased by those interested, and there would still be the rare longtail benefit.
If you prefer a more modern example, you can tell me were to purchase Wildhollow [gamersgate.com] without an intermediate company that does "jack shit". In this case, it's impossible as the developer is out of business.
"Steam Exclusive" is not an issue. Neither is "Epic Store Exclusive", nor "Kartridge Exclusive".
What is the issue is some of the developers using Steam to build up initial interest (as with Metro Exodus), then deciding to become an Epic Store exclusive at the expense of the initial publisher and of the people who could have otherwise streamed their game. This is anti-competitive behavior that was encouraged by Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
gamersgate.com
Wow. That is an unfortunate domain name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FFS get over yourselves. I can get the people who don't want DRM at all but demanding that Epic sell their games on a closed proprietary distributor?!
No one is demanding Epic sell their games on a different store. People are demanding Epic doesn't pay other companies to only sell games on Epic's store, which is exactly what they're doing. Exclusive distribution deals are straight-up anti-competitive and anti-consumer: if Epic was a more major player (like Steam) it would actually (probably, IANAL) be illegal under anti-trust laws. They can only get away with it because anti-trust laws typically only apply once you have a dominant market position.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is demanding Epic sell their games on a different store. People are demanding Epic doesn't pay other companies to only sell games on Epic's store, which is exactly what they're doing.
Seems to me publishers are accepting that money willingly. Probably because it makes a hell of a lot sense compared to the lame deal Steam offers them.
Nobody cries when a game is ONLY available on Steam.
Re:Sounds like this strategy to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody cries when a game is ONLY available on Steam.
True. But Valve isn't paying anybody to sell their game exclusively through Steam.
If a game is exclusively available on Steam, that's because the publisher or developer decided completely on their own and without any outside interference to not make the game available on GoG, Epic's store or elsewhere.
This is not the same with Epic store exclusives, which are paid for by Epic and which force potential customers to switch to a so called store that is barely able to have people buy for and download games, but doesn't offer any of the other benefits that Steam (and, to a lesser degree, GoG) come with, like cloud save.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cries when a game is ONLY available on Steam.
Probably because Steam doesn't obligate publishers not to go on other stores. Probably because Steam isn't a (here comes the pun) streaming pile of shit. Probably because just like no one complained when Netflix was the only game on town because they didn't need to split between multiple providers or platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Or.. Developer is tired of giving Valve 30% of their revenue for doing jack shit.
First, there's a hell of a lot of services that the steam platform provides that a developer does not have to implement.
Second, there's a hell of a lot of exposure by being on Steam that they would not get with their own web site.
Third, 30% is the starting rate. The rate goes down as sales increase.
Exclusive squeals (Score:2, Funny)
Exclusive squeals Are what I'm looking for as a gamer girl.
They said that publicly? (Score:5, Funny)
Traditionally, when someone wants to propose to a competing firm that they collude to fix rates they do it over cigars and scotch at the golf club, or perhaps over hookers & cocaine at a trade show after-party (depending on your style).
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally, when someone wants to propose to a competing firm that they collude to fix rates they do it over cigars and scotch....
Taken in isolation, I agree the tweet looks like price fixing.
But taken as full conversation [twitter.com], it is still risky but looks more like speculation about potential plans, and thoughts about pro-competitive behavior. Thankfully anti-competition laws fall within the "rule of reason" guidelines, so statements like that aren't pulled out of context.
More from his list:
Re: (Score:2)
Doing it for the public good (Score:3)
Yeah right. sure they are. Epic is just the paragon of gaming community.
Re: (Score:2)
They were right to. Paragon was slow, boring trash and extremely unpopular. There was no saving it. Fortnite is fast, exciting trash that is extremely popular. From a business perspective, they made the correct move. In my opinion, all Fortnite and Minecraft kiddos need to segregated from the rest of society.
Pull the other one (Score:5, Interesting)
This comment is for the public (Score:5, Interesting)
Epic made their comments for "public consumption" - it's for consumers to hear. Valve (and Steam) are not their intended audience; Epic is making a humble brag about how they give developers more money.
I'd bet peanuts for walnuts that they WOULDN'T stop trying to get exclusives if Valve dropped their contribution to developers. It's not in Epic's best interest that they do.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is 30% on each sale on steam equates to millions of dollars on a title like fortinite. Suddenly an Epic title exclusive to the Epic store can make them more money than it would on steam and a bunch of other online stores that would also want a cut. We're not talking about competitors it's the manufacture cutting out the reseller.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is 30% on each sale on steam equates to millions of dollars on a title like fortinite.
Nope. 30% is the starting rate. It goes down as sales increase. A game as popular as Fortnite would be paying far, far less by now.
Re: (Score:2)
What he said^ I already have a large Steam library. If Steam gets cheaper I'll just keep sticking with Steam.
I don't see the point of buying something on a platform with less features (and a year+ roadmap for the features), unless the game I want is locked to that platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic made their comments for "public consumption" - it's for consumers to hear. Valve (and Steam) are not their intended audience; Epic is making a humble brag about how they give developers more money.
I'd bet peanuts for walnuts that they WOULDN'T stop trying to get exclusives if Valve dropped their contribution to developers. It's not in Epic's best interest that they do.
Rubbish. Next you're going to tell me Steve Jobs wasn't really against iTunes DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic made their comments for "public consumption" - it's for consumers to hear. Valve (and Steam) are not their intended audience; Epic is making a humble brag about how they give developers more money.
I'd bet peanuts for walnuts that they WOULDN'T stop trying to get exclusives if Valve dropped their contribution to developers. It's not in Epic's best interest that they do.
I've read this more as a "and Epic blinked" moment. A way for Epic to start saving face in front of a failure as publishers are realising that exclusivity hurts sales, rather than increases profit. They're making less money because fewer people are buying from Epic than they were from Steam, they might get 18% more per sale, but they are selling far fewer units. If they lose just 1 in 5 sales, that's a loss over all and this sounds like Epic saying that exclusivity has been hurting sales, without admitting
Unintended consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we are on record seeing a pretty big spike in piracy afaik. Cracking groups heavily prioritizing epic exclusives, with things like metro cracked in a matter of days in spite of denuvo usually taking a few weeks to crack. And one of the biggest benefits of steam was that it made buying games simple enough that if one had the means to do it, it was just easier to get it on steam.
And that's just one of the unintended consequences of exclusivity wars we've seen so far. Another may be the permanent tarnish on Epic Games image among the more hardcore and easily monetizable gamer crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Difficulty I don't think is the issue. I'm sure it's easy on Epic store as well. However these stores aren't just stores. They are gaming portals with chatlists, friends, the ability to see what other people are playing right now and join them. I have no desire to run another of those on my computer all the time in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction after checking the Epic store doesn't accept the most common payment method in my country. Fail. They've just ruled out doing business with people who don't have credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
I do intend to buy Metro Exodus when it comes out somewhere else. Man that was a good game. Hear that Deep Silver? There's 60EUR here, $20 more than you charge Americans sitting here on my desk with your name on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not referring to now. I'm referring to future. Games come and go, and basing your entire income stream on a single game is a recipe for disaster in the future. Traditionally Epic had it's engine development and its game development as its revenue streams. With game development now having eclipsed everything by a large margin in short amount of time, their leadership understands that they need to diversify rapidly while this revenue stream holds or risk crash.
Hence the push for the store. They leverage t
That's sounds like a winner... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam."
Steam would be foolish to concede to those demands from this statement alone. One, those "prior" commitments that they indicate they would honor could extend out into unknown time lengths. It could be that Epic signed up exclusives per game, but it is also equally likely that they have agreements with publishers in terms of "X next games from developer" or "X number of years". Not knowing what those "partner commitments" are is a massive disadvantage. Two, the language of "consider putting our own games..." is massively iffy and makes zero solid groundwork. It instead just leaves the whole thing to the capricious whims of a publisher that's just the most recent example of Zynga meets PC gaming. I wouldn't trust Epic approaching me with a fire extinguisher if I was actively ablaze. They're super focused on "attempting to be the good guy here" and in reality they just need to work on the massive amount of trust issues that they've created for themselves in record time. Which, I might add, this statement from them does zero to alleviate. If anything it just speaks "We're going to continue to be douche bags until you agree to our terms for how to run your business Steam, all the while we'll give zero assurances about any of the platitudes we're offering in this totally non-binding statement."
More likely the CEO is attempting to improve his company's image in a gaming community...
And you know what might actually improve that image? Perhaps if Epic focused on delivering games and stopped the rhetoric of "Oh look how much better we are than Steam! We're the best compared to Steam! I bet Steam would love to be us right now!" If you keep just comparing yourself to your competitor and selling your business model on how you aren't like the other guy, at some point people just tune out and roll eyes. That I'm sure sounds great to investors but dang, I've not really seen that as being a big sell in the gaming community. It's like I'm having a flashback to the whole Nintendon't ads.
Do Steam exclusive games upset people too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Has Steam bought exclusivity deals though? The Valve games are exclusives because they published those games themselves. And I know some games are only available there because the developers didn't want to bother with anything else. But has Valve gone out and paid people to only publish through Steam?
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are hardly shining examples to aspire to. All the bullshit with exclusive games is a huge part of why I've always stayed away from the consoles. I'm all for Steam getting a few ser
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's 6 months.
Time until its usable (Score:2)
It's 6 months.
So roughly the time until the developers have ironed all the bugs and finished releasing all the missing content that didn't make the cut on launch day a.k.a. "DLC" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Lost coast, Half-Life 2: Episode 1, Half-Life 2: Episode 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Portal, Portal 2, DotA 2, Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike: Source, garry's mod, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Artifact.
So yeah, no Steam exclusives at all...
There is a difference between selling your own games only on your own store vw. paying other companies to only sell their games through your store.
If the only Epic store exclusive game was Fotnite, then they would be doing the same.
But paying third parties to snatch games away from a competitor, especially when the games where announced to be sold on that competitors store, is a totally different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, no Steam exclusives at all...
Nope. There aren't any. All those games you listed could be sold on other platforms, if the developer wanted to. That means they aren't exclusives.
"We only want to bother selling via Steam" is not "We are contractually obligated to only sell via Steam".
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's Borderlands 3 that is going to be an Epic Games exclusive for 6 months. Not that it will affect me at all; I almost never buy full priced games (the last one was actually Borderlands 2, but I was also using a gift card at the time). I wait until games are marked down at least 50%. I do want to play Borderlands 3, but it might be well over a year after release for me to pull the trigger on it. I will wait until it gets to Steam. I put up with Origin due to the Mass Effect games, and GOG is also a good place to find older games that will work on Win10. I want nothing to do with Epic Game Store.
This whole exclusivity bruhaha is just Epic muscling in to Steam's business with Forenite cash instead of competing by making a better store.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck makes it "Steam's business"? It's a fucking open market. Steam has no right to nearly monopolize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I would not have put it so crudely, the AC is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The dick move is by the other game publisher - offering a game for pre-order on a platform and then pulling it before a release is a serious dick move.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Borderlands 3 that is going to be an Epic Games exclusive for 6 months.
Indeed and aside from the fact I can't spell "sequel" at 1am it's kind of hard to review bomb a game that doesn't have a review page. Which is why Borderlands, Borderlands 2, and Tales from the Borderlands have been review bombed.
What's in it for me? (Score:3)
Well I go to Epic to download the free games they give out every 2 weeks, and they are good games and they are Free.
I have not bought a game on Epic, I have many on Steam. The prices are all still high on Epic and there are no Indy games there.
As I recall Epic put the store up because they didn't want to sell fortnight on the Apple or Android store or anywhere else so they can keep more money, so they opened their own store.
But the prices of games are not going down on Steam or Epic, so why do I care if the devs keep more money? Or if they are exclusive on a store front?
We will have to see how long the lower fee lasts when Epic start putting in more functionality they need to support for the Dev's games and players.
But I wouldn't count Epic out, they are in this for the Long Run. And have plans to make fortnight more like a Virtual second life world.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I go to Epic to download the free games they give out every 2 weeks, and they are good games and they are Free.
Same here, I figure the devs get a little chunk and Epic gets jack :)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind store exclusives, but... (Score:2)
I don't mind store exclusives, but I hate having to install a store software client that runs in the background all the time, like Steam and that lousy Ubisoft thing do.
Valve is not worried (Score:2)
Well, they were a bit maybe, they adjusted their pricing scheme a little and that was it.
If they were really concerned, wouldn't we be seeing a 'price war' between epic and valve?
Valve lowering their cut to 10%, then epic to 8% etc.
The Irony Is Delicious (Score:2)
Gamers are complaining because Borderlands 3 will be exclusive to Epic for six month, when Steam itself was founded on the arm-twisting exclusivity of Half-Life 2 !
You wanted to play Half-Life 2 ? You had no choice other than to pay Steam. And end up not owning your copy of the game.
Another dose of Irony is that only console gamers can own a legal copy of Half-Life 2, no PC gamer can.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The concept of online purchases were funded that way. Those grew into what is now a service market place. Steam did not split the gaming community in any way. Although when Steam launcher people complained about functionality losses from brick and mortar, but Steam addressed those quite quickly (returns, gifts, etc)
Also Steam was the developer and publisher of HalfLife 2. You'll note that no one gave a shit about Fortnite being an exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that? The latest Metro game was on Epic instead of Steam and was the best-selling entry in the series.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People didn't buy Metro Exodus because it was on Epic instead of Steam. It was the best-selling entry in the series because it has already built a substantial fan base. Additionally Exodus was on the Steam store for months before being yanked at the last second to be an Epic store exclusive...
Re: (Score:2)
*It doesn't entirely baffle me, this is actually really familiar. This smells like the
Re:epic scared (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] people have really focused on this exclusives thing and have largely ignored the giant huge positive aspect in what Epic is doing.
Oh, please tell me about the giant huge positive aspect that Epic has for me, a gamer.
The prices of Epics store seem to be the same as on Steam, so Epic's reduced take doesn't affect the prices for me.
I loose cloud saves, Linux support and other stuff that Steam offers but Epics store doesn't.
I have to use, configure and update one more launcher.
Epic has already proven that they don't develop their store with care for user's privacy and security, and their reactions to the outcry have basically been "sorry that we were caught" instead of "sorry that we fucked up".
Valve doesn't pay money to bind releases to Steam. So if the publisher is willing, I have the choice to buy the games elsewhere. Epic tries to limit my choice by paying money for exclusives.
So what exactly is the benefit for me?
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit is their launcher will minimize non-Epic-store games you are playing when they decide to send you an announcement.
It's a great feature. Honest!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please tell me about the giant huge positive aspect that Epic has for me, a gamer.
I... did? Valve and Epic are middle-men, they are money sinks. Some sort of distribution platform may be required, but there is no virtue in giving them more money than necessary. No of course prices are not going to go down, but more money to developers means games with higher production values, games which can afford be a little more creative and push creative boundaries since they don't have to focus as much on marketability, and just more games in general. These things are positive things for everyone (
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Epic is literally the Unreal game engine, I think they provide significant support to game development at all levels even before they opened their store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, just Source/Source2/variants there upon, which I can't think of a single third party AAA game that was developed on Source*. Unreal, on the other hand...
*noticed that Titanfall and Titanfall 2 were Source engine as I was pulling up listings
Re: (Score:2)
Apex Legends also uses Source 2, or some bastardization of it.
Re: (Score:2)
There also once was something called Games for Windows - Live that didn't turn out so well.
However I'm quite surprised to find so many support for Valve here.
Yes, they may be better than Epic in comparison. But such cautionary tales as GFWL should make someone capable of rational thought be opposed to any kind of these online platforms that either force their DRM to be included in all software (Steam) or don't offer any offline mode (Epic). I d
Re: (Score:2)
Steam DRM is completely optional on the part of the developer. Steam also play nice with others - so for instance you have things like GOG Connect. Any time I've heard about a conflict between Steam and another publisher it's been the other side being unreasonable.
The closest I can think of to Valve being nasty was their argument with EA not long after EA bought Bioware, at the time that EA decided not to publish Mass Effect 3 on Steam because Valve insisted that if DLC was available for purchase within the
Re: (Score:2)
It this was more than just a bait and switch scheme they'd have those games permanently on the the list and maybe would make some useful in-platform announcements instead of having interested people using 3rd party sources like twitter.
I'd rather just buy the games on GOG and won't have Valve see a single penny.
Why again do we need game keys and key management again in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, GOG Connect is a bit better now!
The point I was trying to make, however, is that this is completely up to the game developer/publisher. It's not restricted by Valve. It's why CDPR can sell The Witcher games on Steam without DRM. I'm a huge fan of CDPR, and have substantial game libraries on both GOG and Steam, but other developers and publishers (including Valve) really, really, want DRM, so providing it adds significant value to Steam as a platform from the perspective of the dev/publishers. T
Re: (Score:2)
There was the trouble with refunds for a long, long time. And their customer service was pretty notoriously bad as well.
But yeah, I've been pretty happy with Steam myself having never had cause for personal complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
since both of you (all the gaming community) is under extreme threat should Microsoft decide to set up their own store
I got some bad news for you. Microsoft already set up their own store.
You can see the existential harm it caused, since you were apparently unaware it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is probably planning to take a bigger cut later on if they can get the store established.