Epic Games Store

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,834
I wonder what that Batman game is for next week in the Free section on Epic?
I don't think they would give any of the Rocksteady Batman games out.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Correct, but one company having an effective monopoly with no real competition is not a status quo that should be supported in any way, especially if we look throughout human history to see how many companies abused their monopolies, even if they started out as the 'good guy'.

Many are supportive of Epic's attempt at gaining some marketshare not because they are specifically 'epic fanboys' but because they would be supportive of any other company creating competition against an effective monopoly.

Steam: "Publish your game here or GOG or UPlay or Windows Store or Itch.io or Origin or EGS or anywhere you please, we'll never tell you not to sell your game anywhere else"

EGS: "OUR STORE ONLY"

Epic supporters: "we dont understand what a monopoly is"
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
Steam: "Publish your game here or GOG or UPlay or Windows Store or Itch.io or Origin or EGS or anywhere you please, we'll never tell you not to sell your game anywhere else"

EGS: "OUR STORE ONLY"

Epic supporters: "we dont understand what a monopoly is"

A monopoly would be whoever has a substantial market-share. Steam is the closest thing but it is hard to say it does when you have big alternatives for many of the major games (Origin and Uplay). And Steam's lead is lessening by the month with things like Bethsada, Epic and Activision's thing. Epic has a long way to go to get anywhere close to being a monopoly.

The irony of that post is you don't know what a monopoly is either. :p

And what are these?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/control/bz6w9lrpc26w?activetab=pivot:eek:verviewtab
https://store.ubi.com/us/anno-1800/5b647010ef3aa548048c5958.html?lang=en_US

Looks like you don't understand what the world "only" means either.

Gamers are just like politicians these days. Either outright lying, speaking half truths or using emotional assumptions when a quick bit of thought and a 10 second Google search can give them more insight.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
the irony is that the same people complaining that EGS is "breaking up the PC gaming market" don't blink an eye as companies get shut down or bought and dismantled.
EGS is not a magic solution but paying 30% of all income to what is essentially a webhosting company is pretty ridiculous.
 
D

Deleted member 189430

Guest
Wow, still on this same discussion? It was fun for the first 5 pages, but *click* the unwatch thread.
 

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,995
the irony is that the same people complaining that EGS is "breaking up the PC gaming market" don't blink an eye as companies get shut down or bought and dismantled.
EGS is not a magic solution but paying 30% of all income to what is essentially a webhosting company is pretty ridiculous.

Nobody says "Jolly-Gee after a decade we get a new/legit Borderlands?!??"

Call me crazy but it's almost like some of you guys encourage a monopoly..

TLDR: Read the ToS and invest your money accordingly. (I do think this has gotten way out of hand, almost to a brand-loyalty level)

Enjoy the game; it's the weekend :)
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,618
the irony is that the same people complaining that EGS is "breaking up the PC gaming market" don't blink an eye as companies get shut down or bought and dismantled.
EGS is not a magic solution but paying 30% of all income to what is essentially a webhosting company is pretty ridiculous.

I'm not seeing any price discounts for buying games at stores that pay only 12% for that web hosting, are you? Well, they did have that one month sale where they subsidized many games for $10 discounts which led several game devs to take their game off the store for the month of the sale.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
A monopoly would be whoever has a substantial market-share.

That's certainly a fun, made-up definition.

Epic has a long way to go to get anywhere close to being a monopoly.

The takeaway isn't that EGS is a monopoly. It's that they're engaging in monopolistic business tactics, and telegraphing their intentions to be one. "You have to buy it from us or you can't buy it at all". That's inherently anti-consumer. And if the bribery tactics work, there would be no reason for them to ever stop. Nor would they have any incentive to improve their abysmal service level or nonexistent store feature set, if enough head-in-sand gamers buy their dogfood anyway.

But by all means, stick to "the cancer has a long way to go before it's shutting down your vital organs, might as well just ignore it until then." That always works.


What ARE those? Sweeney couldn't get a publisher to sell out 100% to EGS on a few titles, proves what? That Sweeney didn't want those on EGS exclusively, and wanted people to have a choice where to buy them? No. A few exceptions don't disprove the rule, nor Epic's intent.
 
Last edited:

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
That's certainly a fun, made-up definition.
Yes, "the cancer has a long way to go before it's shutting down your vital organs, might as well just ignore it until then." That always works.

The takeaway isn't that EGS is a monopoly. It's that they're engaging in monopolistic business tactics, and telegraphing their intentions to be one. Because if the bribery tactics work, there would be no reason for them to ever stop. Nor would they have any incentive to improve their abysmal service level or nonexistent store feature set, if enough head-in-sand gamers buy their dogfood anyway.

You are talking nonsense. Most of these games have console versions. many of them are also on steam and others are available on humble store, still using the EGS launcher, but a launcher does not make a "monopoly".
you want to bitch about the store, how you have to make 2 transactions to get the double free games, then fine. But don't make up reasons to be angry.

OH, THOSE FKIN bastards stole steam games by paying the developers more for them. Well no shit. The right to sell games is a commodity. Google is getting into it, apple is getting into it and I suspect Amazon will once they see it makes money. The era of steam raking in the cash is gone. They are going to have to compete to get games like everyone else will. If they don't they will get left out. Nobody is going to pay 30% for a webhosting service if they have cheaper options available. Sorry but the customers do not matter in this regard. On the one hand you have people that "want it in their steam library" and on the other hand you have companies fighting for survival. A report came out a few days ago that talked about how much money games make on steam.

https://www.videogamer.com/news/steams-sliding-revenue-indicates-that-pc-games-are-not-selling-well-

In 2018, the average game sold 5,000 copies and made $30,000 in revenue, at an average price of $12 in its first year on the market. According to Rose’s analysis, the average game in 2019 is priced at $10 and sells 1,500 copies; a decrease of 70 per cent year-on-year. The average game in 2019 will generate $16,000 in revenue, which is down 47 per cent compared to 2018 data.

steam has so much trash on it that it pretty much ensures smaller games will be lost in with all the asset flips.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,618
And who pushed for indie games and asset flips to get easier access to Steam a few years ago? Indie devs and some of their supporters.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,240
a launcher does not make a "monopoly".

Then why do people keep calling Steam one? Are you saying those people are idiots? I mean, I agree, but people keep saying it anyway.

Sorry but the customers do not matter in this regard.

They matter in as much as, you know, wanting to stay in business.

On the one hand you have people that "want it in their steam library" and on the other hand you have companies fighting for survival. A report came out a few days ago that talked about how much money games make on steam.

https://www.videogamer.com/news/steams-sliding-revenue-indicates-that-pc-games-are-not-selling-well-

What companies are "fighting for survival"? It's certainly not the AAA publishers, they make record profits every year. If you're talking about indies...yeah, I have more sympathy for them taking an EGS deal. But a lot of these companies are not indies...4A Games, Gearbox, these are not small studios that desperately need cash.

Also, that article seems to indicate that the future is subscription services and cloud gaming. If that's the case, I guess I'll find a new hobby because I'm not interested in any of that.

steam has so much trash on it that it pretty much ensures smaller games will be lost in with all the asset flips.

Yeah, that has always been an issue with Steam, I agree with you there. I would suggest that going EGS exclusive is not the solution to that problem, though. Maybe if you sold your game on all other platforms BUT Steam, they would get the picture. But that's not what EGS is about here, they're about creating a closed system where they and they alone rake in tons of cash.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
That's certainly a fun, made-up definition.

When the whole world is wrong except you, maybe it isn't the whole world that has gone mad but you:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly


The takeaway isn't that EGS is a monopoly.

Then why claim it is?

It's that they're engaging in monopolistic business tactics, and telegraphing their intentions to be one.

The goal of a business is to gain market share and make money. Every business engages in monopolistic business practices; few reach that status. The gaming industry is far, far from having a monopoly on game publishing. In fact it has more diversity than ever.

"You have to buy it from us or you can't buy it at all".

Same deal with EA, Ubisoft & Valve. Invest in something and require it be sold on your own store. The horror. The developers/publishers can always choose someone else to partner with.

That's inherently anti-consumer.

It really isn't. You're confusing "I don't like this change" with "anti-consumer".

But by all means, stick to "the cancer has a long way to go before it's shutting down your vital organs, might as well just ignore it until then." That always works.

Be honest, you don't care about anyone having a monopoly on PC game distribution. The market is far more crowded now than it was in 2011 during Steam's height. That was as close to a monopoly PC gaming ever had and we didn't hear these complaints back then. And honestly, it was a pretty good time for PC gaming at Steam's height. You're insisting that a monopoly is inherently bad but this isn't always the case. The only reason you've jumped on the "monopoly is bad in 2019" bandwagon is because you're copy/pasting someone's rant.

What ARE those? Sweeney couldn't get a publisher to sell out 100% to EGS on a few titles, proves what? That Sweeney didn't want those on EGS exclusively, and wanted people to have a choice where to buy them? No. A few exceptions don't disprove the rule, nor Epic's intent.

What an interesting way of saying "I was wrong".

Kind of like the whole argument that they don't allow 3rd party key sites which some people here still deny (okay, the first two weeks Metro Exodus didn't have an option). Or regional pricing (same deal there).

If you just said "I don't like EGS because the launcher sucks" it would be much more truthful and get to the point much quicker. And frankly, is all the justification you need to not like it. But the false issues, muddling up of terms and outright denials when shown wrong is just laughable.

Google is getting into it, apple is getting into it and I suspect Amazon will once they see it makes money. The era of steam raking in the cash is gone. They are going to have to compete to get games like everyone else will. If they don't they will get left out.

And this is the crux of the issue here. Steam has gotten lazy and arrogant. Unless they change course (and random Streamers on store pages/library won't help) they will quickly get left behind with the many subscription services or clients coming out. Classic example of a company having a massive hold on an industry and being too slow to react to new players in the market.

Currently Steam carries a prestigious branding when it comes to PC games but that won't last forever. The more developers that run off and do their own thing (Activision, Bethsada) or go to new competitors (EGS) the less people will care about Steam. People use Steam for the games, not to level up their Steam account. When all they have left are asset flips they won't be able to command the market like they did in the past.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,812
And who pushed for indie games and asset flips to get easier access to Steam a few years ago? Indie devs and some of their supporters.

I'd like some proof to back that statement up. I don't recall anyone demanding that asset flippers, scammers, and the like got easier access. In fact, one of the things people have been calling for for years is that Valve get off their ass and actually care about what goes up on the store.

Then why do people keep calling Steam one? Are you saying those people are idiots? I mean, I agree, but people keep saying it anyway.

A few years back Forbes (I believe) estimated that Steam controlled anywhere between 50 and 75% of the entire PC gaming market. Even at the low end of that number its fucking huge, especially when you consider things like Minecraft, Fortnite, all the Blizzard titles, League, and the various "competing" platforms. For years Valve has essentially controlled the PC digital games market. They set the standards and everyone else followed or got left behind. Whether you want to call it a monopoly or not they effectively had (and continue to have) a stranglehold on the market and it has made them get incredibly lazy and complacent.
 

Denpepe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,007
A few years back Forbes (I believe) estimated that Steam controlled anywhere between 50 and 75% of the entire PC gaming market. Even at the low end of that number its fucking huge, especially when you consider things like Minecraft, Fortnite, all the Blizzard titles, League, and the various "competing" platforms. For years Valve has essentially controlled the PC digital games market. They set the standards and everyone else followed or got left behind. Whether you want to call it a monopoly or not they effectively had (and continue to have) a stranglehold on the market and it has made them get incredibly lazy and complacent.

I wonder how they count that, as some games not on steam have huge playerbases some data about 2018 talks about 90 million monthly users, thats around the playerbase of lol but if you look at the nr of games then steam which has a huge catalog will fare differently, just that 95% of that catalog is crap that noone wants/needs.

Battle.net only has a handfull of games but they sell millions of each while steam has 30k+ games where most of them only sell a couple thousand and they lost some of the biggest sellers over the last couple of years.

As an indie unless you can generate some hype there is little to no visibility in the steam catalog for your game, which might also happen on the EGS store if they deceide some day to let (almost) everyone iin.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,618
I'd like some proof to back that statement up. I don't recall anyone demanding that asset flippers, scammers, and the like got easier access. In fact, one of the things people have been calling for for years is that Valve get off their ass and actually care about what goes up on the store.

Steam Greenlight program and now early access. Let us in they cried. Sure, Steam could curate their store better but its rather rich to hear small indies complain about it too much. There is always the new guy as it were in Itch.io for indies.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,812
I wonder how they count that, as some games not on steam have huge playerbases some data about 2018 talks about 90 million monthly users, thats around the playerbase of lol but if you look at the nr of games then steam which has a huge catalog will fare differently, just that 95% of that catalog is crap that noone wants/needs.

Battle.net only has a handfull of games but they sell millions of each while steam has 30k+ games where most of them only sell a couple thousand and they lost some of the biggest sellers over the last couple of years.

As an indie unless you can generate some hype there is little to no visibility in the steam catalog for your game, which might also happen on the EGS store if they deceide some day to let (almost) everyone iin.

I imagine the large spread of that percentage is due to the challenge of gathering what data is available and estimating off of it. Though this was was a few years back, when Steamspy was still around so that might have made getting some information a little easier.

Even without opening the floodgates, if Epic signs deals with too many studios at once it will cause smaller games to get lost in the shuffle. Them going after AAA publishers and developers like Ubi and Gearbox is a quick way to turn EGS into a store where indies are buried under big games.

Steam Greenlight program and now early access. Let us in they cried. Sure, Steam could curate their store better but its rather rich to hear small indies complain about it too much. There is always the new guy as it were in Itch.io for indies.

Greenlight and Early Access would have been great programs, if Valve cared enough to pay attention to the games up there. The reason everyone called for an end to Greenlight was because they wanted Valve to replace it with something better, something that Valve would pay attention to. Instead they did Steam Direct, making the problem even worse.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
Epic isn't signing any deals with anyone except people that can bring traffic to their store. They can make their guarantees and fulfill them by giving the game away as a weekly special.

Steam screwed up in allowing so much trash into their system. If you don't read about it you will never see them.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,834
It was the Lego Batman triology the entire Rocksteady Batman series is going on Epic.

They improved the layout today so you can view only installed games in your Library as well as a list view.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,271
The free Batman games this month = pretty great. That's a boatload of good content at no charge.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,834
Metro Exodus 2033 never even grazed that game on Steam think it's the remastered version.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,834
Damn they are all free except Batman Origins is not included but I have all the games on Steam already.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
Click this link here:
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-batman-arkham-and-lego-trilogies-are-free-on-the-epic-store-this-week/

You have to claim each bundle separately. Arkham Origins isn't included.

I liked Asylum, hated City, thought Knight was okay but far too long and too many side quests. Origins was a mix between Asylum and Knight and felt a lot easier which was decent but still had the same flaws, but not a horrible game. But never tried the Lego games, grabbed them anyways. Are they worth playing? Never understood the idea of a Lego game.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
21,093
Click this link here:
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-batman-arkham-and-lego-trilogies-are-free-on-the-epic-store-this-week/

You have to claim each bundle separately. Arkham Origins isn't included.

I liked Asylum, hated City, thought Knight was okay but far too long and too many side quests. Origins was a mix between Asylum and Knight and felt a lot easier which was decent but still had the same flaws, but not a horrible game. But never tried the Lego games, grabbed them anyways. Are they worth playing? Never understood the idea of a Lego game.

what an absolute steal!...one of the best gaming trilogies ever and it still holds up today...plus the last 2 are total graphical eye candy...Epic Store giving them away for free!
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
Just to be fair, I don't know what that statement means. There are no numbers for comparison. Are they including console sales in that 5 million? PC sales are typically about 30% of total, so.... 1.5 million maybe? I calculate they saved about 8 million vs having it on steam.
 

zrikz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
1,080
Blurb from the press release.
Within its first five days of launch, 50 percent more consumers purchased Borderlands 3 versus sales of its predecessor – Borderlands 2 – making the title the fastest-selling in 2K’s history, as well as the highest-selling title for the label on PC in a five-day window. In addition, Borderlands 3 has sold-in more than 5 million units in its first five days, leading the Borderlands franchise to generate more than $1 billion in Net Bookings and becoming the second franchise in 2K history to achieve this milestone.

Would be curious to know total pc sales though. Either way it seems to have sold better in comparison to BL2 release on steam for pc sales comparison.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,739
Just as I suspected, no impact for having it on epic instead of steam. Most people will go to where the good game is.

You would need to know what portion of that is PC sales in order to make that assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoFGR
like this

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,271
I'm accumulating a pretty decent library of free games from the Epic store. Borderlands is the only game I've purchased, but I have like 10 (good) games in my library.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,834
Yeah you could spend s good chunk of a year trying to finish all the games offered in the past few weeks.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Blurb from the press release.

Would be curious to know total pc sales though. Either way it seems to have sold better in comparison to BL2 release on steam for pc sales comparison.
The PC userbase growing massively since 2012, the continuous BL1 and BL2 $5 bundle sales throughout the last 7 years might have helped just a little in growing the fanbase and building insane anticipation and hype for a sequel. Was anyone shocked when GTA5 outsold GTA4?

I'm just not sure why people keep mentioning a big sequel outselling it's predecessor like it's big news. If the point is "people don't care where they buy a game (on PC) after all", that's quite a broad brush, and the only people that can honestly answer whether or not people cared is 2K, since only they know the real EGS sales numbers.

2K could have sold at least a million more copies had they made it available on multiple PC stores and letting consumers decide, rather than creating a headwind and being controversial and polarizing.
 
Last edited:

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
23,007
the only people that can honestly answer whether or not people cared is 2K, since only they know the real EGS sales numbers.

2K could have sold at least a million more copies had they made it available on multiple PC stores and letting consumers decide, rather than creating a headwind and being controversial and polarizing.
You just contradicted yourself.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
You just contradicted yourself.

Yeah, that number is being pulled out of his rear. The game sold 5 million copies so far. The average for AAA games is around 30% sales go to the PC version, which would be close to around 1.5 million copies so far. Obviously putting it on Steam (honestly, no one else cares about any other client, BL2 was exclusive to Steam and no one cared) would have netted some extra sales, but not by that much. ~2.5 million for the PC version of the game out of 6 million sales would be around 45%. That just isn't happening outside of "PC Master Race" fantasies. And this is likely the killer app for EGS (that isn't Fortnite). Over time the amount of people skeptical of buying on EGS will go down so this is increasingly becoming irrelevant.

Let us look at Witcher 3, the PC gamer's go to poster child for being PC oriented. A developer extremely popular on PC and a series that had not yet been released on consoles, aside from a belayed and not so good Xbox 360 port a year after the PC release (Witcher 2). Pretty much a new IP on consoles with no fan base. Yet, PC gamers only accounted for 31% of the early sales:

Witcher3.jpg


As time went on PC sales started to outsell console versions but the amount of total sales by the numbers in 2016 and 2017 likely pales in comparison to 2015's launch months.

And this game not only was release on Steam, but DRM free on GOG.

Would BL3 have achieved roughly 45% sales in week one if it were on Steam? Not a chance in hell.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
The PC userbase growing massively since 2012, the continuous BL1 and BL2 $5 bundle sales throughout the last 7 years might have helped just a little in growing the fanbase and building insane anticipation and hype for a sequel. Was anyone shocked when GTA5 outsold GTA4?

I'm just not sure why people keep mentioning a big sequel outselling it's predecessor like it's big news. If the point is "people don't care where they buy a game (on PC) after all", that's quite a broad brush, and the only people that can honestly answer whether or not people cared is 2K, since only they know the real EGS sales numbers.

2K could have sold at least a million more copies had they made it available on multiple PC stores and letting consumers decide, rather than creating a headwind and being controversial and polarizing.

nope, most everyone would have picked steam resulting in huge losses. I estimate 1.5 PC million sales, probably 11 million in revenue that would be lost to steam.
BUT... there would be MORE sales you say.... they will get those very same sales in 6 months and all the steam users will be crowing about how by waiting they got the patched and bugfixed version of the game.
 
Top