Epic losing massive amounts of money in the battle vs Steam

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,061
There are a lot of news articles about this but here is the FPSreview one:
https://www.thefpsreview.com/2021/0...-on-330-million-loss-in-battle-against-steam/

Epic spent $444 million on grabbing up exclusives and free games for the store. This money went towards a bunch of “minimum guarantees” for publishers and devs. These minimums were paid out to publishers regardless if a game sells well enough to cover it, which is why so many companies took Epic Game Store deals. A guaranteed bit of cash is better than a possible loss. For example, to get Control on the Epic Game Store as an exclusive Epic paid out $10.5 million.

Tim Sweeney’s Spin is that these losses are necessary to grow a business and that the future is bright. But on the other end, I’m sure every store that charges 30% for their storefront likely feels justified for charging their margin in the face of multi 100 million dollar losses.
 
Last edited:

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,735
They are trying to compete against the biggest, and arguably best, with an inferior platform. Throwing money at it to grow market share was a given. It will likely work out in the end. Lucky for them they had Fortnite. Otherwise they never would have had the cash to even try.
I only even have an Epic account for free games, and have zero intention of ever buying from them, but if their existence helps keep Valve on their toes, I am all for it.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,510
As long as the big hitters like BL3 are selling above whatever their agreed minimum guarantee was it evens out. Only seems like a good deal for developers with under performing games that Epic over values.

They're very much over inflating the value/loss value. The free games they value far more than they're worth, typically $20-60 for games that have been on sale for $5 frequently. Some have even been free. And a large amount of those who redeemed games wouldn't buy them at all, let along for full price. This throws off their valuation by a huge amount.

Their biggest losses are probably the huge sales they used to run with the $10 off coupons for new games.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,150
As someone else pointed out very wisely: By giving out free games, you don't attract people who want to spend lots of money on games, you attract freeloaders
I've grabbed most of their freebies. I think I have spent perhaps $100 there since they launched when they had their big sales with coupons.
Their launcher is basic and it works okish... but I don't know downloads are still slower vs Steam where I am at least. Somehow Steam just seems so far ahead still... I am sure I have spent more like 5 or 600 on steam stuff in the same time frame.

The freebies will get people in the door... but if you want people to stay you have to do something worth having them stay for. They still have a pretty smallish library in comparison, and they don't seem to have done any of the things they said they would catch up on.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,150
It does not matter to me how much they've spent on exclusives or freebies.
I'm happy that someone has finally come along to challenge the 30% rape and defacto monopoly that is Steam.
Anyone that believes Epic wouldn't (or won't be) charging the same 30% if they could is smoking some good stuff.

Should Steam ever decide to transition into being a landscape company, or a spreadsheet developer. Epic would be up to 30% before steams corpse was a week old.

Its easy to say 30% is rape and we will only charge 15% when you have no market share.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
519
Their platform sucks. Say you have Epic 30 games installed on a separate game/data drive and you want to reinstall Windows. After reinstalling Windows and the Epic client, the client DOES NOT DETECT your 30 games. You have to jump through hoops to get each and every game recognized again or else you have to redownload each game.

Steam, GOG, and to a certain extent Ubisoft do not have a problem with this scenario.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,495
As someone else pointed out very wisely: By giving out free games, you don't attract people who want to spend lots of money on games, you attract freeloaders
Well it's kind of stating the obvious: the giveaways are like trying to pay people to be your friend or come to your party. It sets up an expectation behavior loop that doesn't create any loyalty. Sweeney fails on so many levels, and not grasping that is probably the biggest.
 

harvestor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
148
Horrible install system but for free games it doesnt bother me that much, have not spent a cent with epic and never will.

keeping steam on their toes and honest is never a bad thing
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,745
Brand Loyalties don't do anything but rape your wallet. You hate em or love em, all I hope is for more competition instead of Monopoly with one company like steam.
What are you complaining about then? Seems like Epic is the perfect platform for you to rage against the machine.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,886
It does not matter to me how much they've spent on exclusives or freebies.
I'm happy that someone has finally come along to challenge the 30% rape and defacto monopoly that is Steam.

I think people are forgetting the tremendous deal that 30% is compared to the costs of going to market with games in the brick and mortar era.

And Valve is not doing nothing for that money. They are maintaining a store, handling all of the payment transactions and making the title available for unlimited downloads for life, which requires all sorts of server hardware, IT maintenance and loads of bandwidth costs.

I don't think the 30% is unreasonable at all.

There is a reason Valve swooped in and essentially took over the games distribution market. It's because the 30% was so incredibly cheap compared to the costs of distribution that existed in the past.

That said, I am open free market competition. I think it is great when there are multiple choices and customers have to choice to use the one that suits them the best. That is not what we have with paid exclusives, which are a distortion of the marketplace and utilizing a form of monopoly to force those who don't want to to use your platform.

This is why I completely oppose Epic in every way possible. I won't even install their client for free giveaway titles. I'd rather pay for them from another source than give epic any inroads at all. What they are doing is just plain wrong.
 

AVATARAT

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
172
If Epic want more sells, they need to lower prices of every or some titles but not to offer free games.
Everyone will want to safe few bugs.
It's pointless to gift games because this give them nothing.
I have their launcher only because the free games, but I prefer to buy games from Steam.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,251
After being a strong critic when Tim Sweeney and EGS started doing this exclusives thing (and exclusives are still a great danger that needs to be stopped), I've become generally supportive of Tim's goal. A major reason for that is Tim's clear endorsement of game ownership and his idea for a universal game ledger where everybody's owned games would be recorded independent of any particular digital retail platform, with a person being able to download their owned games from one of many places.

Epic Games integrates into GoG, and Tim Sweeney advocates for universal game ownership across all platforms
GoG and EGS' Universal Ownership vision moves ahead as GoG starts community testing of its in-development storefront

EG and CD Projekt have started to work towards that goal by implementing some cross-platform integration.

Another reason I've become generally supportive of Tim and EGS' efforts is because Valve / Steam has become an enemy of PC gaming in a very critical area, which is game ownership. Valve has not stood up for the fact that people own their purchased games, but has instead argued against that fact, while implemented some changes to their platform that are clearly aimed at countering game-ownership arguments. Valve used to be called the saviour of PC gaming, but now they're one of its enemies and need to be brought-down a few rungs / divested from.

Additionally, Steam has some of the shittiest, pettiest forum moderators around, who are eager to misuse their moderation ability to hide facts (some of them will delete any post or thread containing information about game ownership) and push disinformation about people's rights concerning their purchased games, and to bully, spite, and try to intimidate people who have posted information about game ownership rights - and I'm not exaggerating. On the Steam moderation team, there are some eager abusers and liars who together exemplify a loserish teenager clique mentality.


In my view, a platform which doesn't support game ownership is an enemy of your personal property and shouldn't be supported, and it's working against one's own self-interest (as a game purchaser and owner) to support platforms that are antagonistic towards game ownership rights. GoG and Tim Sweeney support game ownership. GoG says right on their platform that people own the games they purchase through GoG. Tim Sweeney has said possession != ownership while advocating for universal ownership of games. I would rather support them at this point than Steam / Valve.

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1285392235123671041

GoG - You buy it, you own it - focused.png
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
458
After being a strong critic when Tim Sweeney and EGS started doing this exclusives thing (and exclusives are still a great danger that needs to be stopped), I've become generally supportive of Tim's goal. A major reason for that is Tim's clear endorsement of game ownership and his idea for a universal game ledger where everybody's owned games would be recorded independent of any particular digital retail platform, with a person being able to download their owned games from one of many places.

Epic Games integrates into GoG, and Tim Sweeney advocates for universal game ownership across all platforms
GoG and EGS' Universal Ownership vision moves ahead as GoG starts community testing of its in-development storefront

EG and CD Projekt have started to work towards that goal by implementing some cross-platform integration.

Another reason I've become generally supportive of Tim and EGS' efforts is because Valve / Steam has become an enemy of PC gaming in a very critical area, which is game ownership. Valve has not stood up for the fact that people own their purchased games, but has instead argued against that fact, while implemented some changes to their platform that are clearly aimed at countering game-ownership arguments. Valve used to be called the saviour of PC gaming, but now they're one of its enemies and need to be brought-down a few rungs / divested from.

Additionally, Steam has some of the shittiest, pettiest forum moderators around, who are eager to misuse their moderation ability to hide facts (some of them will delete any post or thread containing information about game ownership) and push disinformation about people's rights concerning their purchased games, and to bully, spite, and try to intimidate people who have posted information about game ownership rights - and I'm not exaggerating. On the Steam moderation team, there are some eager abusers and liars who together exemplify a loserish teenager clique mentality.


In my view, a platform which doesn't support game ownership shouldn't be supported, and it's working against one's own self-interest (as a game purchaser and owner) to support platforms that are antagonistic towards game ownership rights. GoG and Tim Sweeney support game ownership. GoG says right on their platform that people own the games they purchase through GoG. Tim Sweeney has said possession != ownership while advocating for universal ownership of games. I would rather support them at this point than Steam / Valve.

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1285392235123671041

View attachment 347107
Will EGS let me download offline installers that are DRM free like GOG? If not, then they really don't care about game ownership.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,495
After being a strong critic when Tim Sweeney and EGS started doing this exclusives thing (and exclusives are still a great danger that needs to be stopped), I've become generally supportive of Tim's goal. A major reason for that is Tim's clear endorsement of game ownership and his idea for a universal game ledger where everybody's owned games would be recorded independent of any particular digital retail platform, with a person being able to download their owned games from one of many places.

Epic Games integrates into GoG, and Tim Sweeney advocates for universal game ownership across all platforms
GoG and EGS' Universal Ownership vision moves ahead as GoG starts community testing of its in-development storefront

EG and CD Projekt have started to work towards that goal by implementing some cross-platform integration.
Not his idea. GOG's idea, and implementation, and programming, and heavy lifting. Tim did jack shit except agree "Sure you can launch EGS games from your launcher if you want, lol, it costs me nothing!", then proceeds to PR announce and take credit for it like he's some champion of "Universal Game Ownership" like it means anything.

The moment Fortnite appears on GOG, or anywhere else for that matter, then we can talk koombaya "Tim really cares about games you guys.". Until then, bad faith PR bullshit. Tim will say anything, especially when factoring all the slimy backroom stuff he is simultaneously engaged in, like bribing publishers and developers to sabotage other stores.
 
Last edited:

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
458
Not his idea. GOG's idea, and implementation, and programming, and heavy lifting. Tim did jack shit except agree "Sure you can launch EGS games from your launcher if you want, lol, it costs me nothing!", then proceeds to PR announce and take credit for it like he's some champion of "Universal Game Ownership" like it means anything.

We can talk about koombaya "universal game ownership" the moment Fortnite is on GOG, or anywhere else for that matter. Until then, bad faith PR bullshit. Tim will say anything, especially when factoring all the slimy backroom stuff he is simultaneously engaged in, like bribing publishers and developers to try to sabotage other stores.
Wait, are you saying that a company "advocating" for something is just...an empty gesture if not backed by actions? It can't be!
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,251
Will EGS let me download offline installers that are DRM free like GOG? If not, then they really don't care about game ownership.
No, they won't. But voicing support for it while advocating for, and implementing universal game ownership together with GoG is still showing they care about game ownership while doing something about it. Even just voicing support for it as a publisher and platform provider is helpful because it spreads awareness, encourages support, and it helps to show that there isn't a one-sided viewpoint in the industry (which might help for future legal cases).

But GoG does do what you ask, of course, and I think they're the best platform out there. Their GoG Galaxy (I just call it Goglaxy) client also has significant advantages over the Steam client, in that it allows automatic updating to be easily fully disabled for games. Additionally, Goglaxy makes it easy to download or revert to an older version of a game - something that takes a console command on Steam, as well as an additional tweak to prevent that older version of the game from being updated when the publisher pushes a new update.

GoG gives the game-owner full control over their installation, with no DRM, and with the means to backup their games. That makes GoG the champion of game ownership rights in the industry. But EG are still doing more than any other publisher than GoG in voicing support for game ownership and making steps to develop a universal ledger for universal game ownership.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,495
Brand Loyalties don't do anything but rape your wallet. You hate em or love em, all I hope is for more competition instead of Monopoly with one company like steam.
It's not about brand loyalty. It's about having a level of confidence in the company you are entrusting to hold the keys to your digital games library, that those games will actually be available to you when you go to play them.

When you see a company behaving like Epic has, with a lunatic CEO behaving recklessly like picking fights with Apple and losing people access to their games (Fortnite on iOS for example) because of that recklessness, it reduces that confidence.

That's why I'll never spend a dime on EGS, nor provide them lots of free telemetry in exchange for "free games" on their leaky launcher. And it's not about "Steam only" - that false narrative doesn't square with the many games most of us have bought on just about all other stores - GOG, uPlay, Origin, Rockstar, whatever - companies that are actually sane.
 
Last edited:

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,251
Not his idea. GOG's idea, and implementation, and programming, and heavy lifting. Tim did jack shit except agree "Sure you can launch EGS games from your launcher if you want, lol, it costs me nothing!", then proceeds to PR announce and take credit for it like he's some champion of "Universal Game Ownership" like it means anything.

The moment Fortnite appears on GOG, or anywhere else for that matter, then we can talk koombaya "Tim really cares about games you guys.". Until then, bad faith PR bullshit. Tim will say anything, especially when factoring all the slimy backroom stuff he is simultaneously engaged in, like bribing publishers and developers to sabotage other stores.
I don't think that Tim was stealing PR in voicing his support for it. I don't think it's a PR move at all. EG's clients are firstly publishers - some of which (perhaps most of all Ubisoft) are notoriously against game ownership and have tried for years to do everything they can to undermine game ownership. In publicly supporting game ownership, Tim Sweeney is taking a position that not all of his company's clients will like, which wouldn't be beneficial PR between EG and those clients. Conversely, Valve has adopted the position of the more aggressively anti-game-ownership publishers out there, screwing-over their storefront customers.

Wait, are you saying that a company "advocating" for something is just...an empty gesture if not backed by actions? It can't be!
Advocation isn't an empty gesture. It's action with real effect - including spreading awareness and gathering support for what's being advocated for. And in the case of EG and GoG's partnership, it has already resulted in some real-world progress towards the idea.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advocacy
"the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal"
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,036
Steam has exclusives too. Talk to me when you can buy Half Life: Alyx on GoG. Or any number of big 3rd party games that launch exclusively on Steam (not paid, but still de facto exclusives).
 
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
600
I don't have an account with them, but aside from exclusives which I hate, at least he's pushing steam out of their comfort zone a bit which is good. And good for gog which I try to buy from wherever I can.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,127
After being a strong critic when Tim Sweeney and EGS started doing this exclusives thing (and exclusives are still a great danger that needs to be stopped), I've become generally supportive of Tim's goal. A major reason for that is Tim's clear endorsement of game ownership and his idea for a universal game ledger where everybody's owned games would be recorded independent of any particular digital retail platform, with a person being able to download their owned games from one of many places.

Epic Games integrates into GoG, and Tim Sweeney advocates for universal game ownership across all platforms
GoG and EGS' Universal Ownership vision moves ahead as GoG starts community testing of its in-development storefront

EG and CD Projekt have started to work towards that goal by implementing some cross-platform integration.

Another reason I've become generally supportive of Tim and EGS' efforts is because Valve / Steam has become an enemy of PC gaming in a very critical area, which is game ownership. Valve has not stood up for the fact that people own their purchased games, but has instead argued against that fact, while implemented some changes to their platform that are clearly aimed at countering game-ownership arguments. Valve used to be called the saviour of PC gaming, but now they're one of its enemies and need to be brought-down a few rungs / divested from.

Additionally, Steam has some of the shittiest, pettiest forum moderators around, who are eager to misuse their moderation ability to hide facts (some of them will delete any post or thread containing information about game ownership) and push disinformation about people's rights concerning their purchased games, and to bully, spite, and try to intimidate people who have posted information about game ownership rights - and I'm not exaggerating. On the Steam moderation team, there are some eager abusers and liars who together exemplify a loserish teenager clique mentality.


In my view, a platform which doesn't support game ownership is an enemy of your personal property and shouldn't be supported, and it's working against one's own self-interest (as a game purchaser and owner) to support platforms that are antagonistic towards game ownership rights. GoG and Tim Sweeney support game ownership. GoG says right on their platform that people own the games they purchase through GoG. Tim Sweeney has said possession != ownership while advocating for universal ownership of games. I would rather support them at this point than Steam / Valve.

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1285392235123671041

View attachment 347107

This sounds a lot like marketing. EGS is the LAST entity I'd ever trust given how many customer unfriendly, blatantly hostile decisions they've made. If they were so concerned about users having the experience of ownership, they could have done something other than try to bring the taint of 3rd party contract exclusivity to PC gaming before they barely got in the door. Valve and Steam have done more to allow open, customer centric policies than anyone else. I am not sure where you've come up with the idea that Valve is somehow against game 'ownership', as that couldn't be further from the truth - rather, it is the game publishers that are doing so. Years ago Valve tried to allow users to "package up" their owned titles and resell them on the market - every major publisher basically threatened to pull their titles from Steam if they went ahead with this. Likewise, Steam has always had open APIs and has partnered with others including GOG and Itch in the past in search of universal libraries. Furthermore, the vast majority of Steam games that do not include publisher supplied DRM can be launched directly from their executable - you don't even need Steam running. There are some titles that use Steam's APIs for certain things like multiplayer or whatnot, but a quick change to an .ini or offline mode on Steam and it all works fine ; I really don't get the idea that somehow Steam is laughing as they slap DRM on titles that wouldn't have it otherwise . Lots of people mistake Steamworks network/service integration where the client expects certain connections to be there to be "DRM", but that's wholly inaccurate. There IS a Steamworks DRM module but there are relatively few titles that have used it at the publisher's behest.

Ultimately, EGS is still enemy number one thanks to their policies; its going to take a long time for them to dig themselves out of the needless hole they dug since debuting EGS. GOG pays a lot of lip service to open this and open that, but they don't do much to deliver on it. Their latest client isn't even Linux compatible! Meanwhile Steam has provided everything from the SteamAPI and Steamworks, community functions, Steam Workshop, Guides, to a native Linux client, tons of investment into open source projects like SteamVR and Proton, and a number of other meaningful open and user-centric policies. I'm not sure about whatever forum grievance you've had, but I've not run into that experience myself. Overall , when it comes to overall user experience , openness, and useful features I'd say that Steam is by far and away the most viable "major" store-platform, with Itch coming up as a suitable compliment for indie titles.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,035
Steam has exclusives too. Talk to me when you can buy Half Life: Alyx on GoG. Or any number of big 3rd party games that launch exclusively on Steam (not paid, but still de facto exclusives).
I mean ... Half Life is not really a good example since that's literally their game and they can do what they want with it. But exclusives are definitely annoying for the consumer.
 
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
600
I don't know you can just run just a game's exe on some steam games. Even if you uninstalled steam?

gog doesn't have the finances to keep up with Linux like steam. I'm sure they want to but right now they are trying to keep up on the windows platform.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,735
30% is nothing when Publishers used to take it all, often including ownership of the IP, and maybe give the devs crumbs if they made their sales numbers inside a certain time frame. And once your game was off the shelf for the next new thing, it was pretty much gone forever unless it was actually popular. Steam changed that.
EGS does not take 30% because they are not in a position to take 30%. It's not because they don't want to. It's because their service is not worth that 30%. Most devs seem to believe Steam is, unless EGS actually pays them to think otherwise.

"So, you are saying you are going to give us X millions to give you a timed exclusive, regardless of actual sales, and then you get 15% of sales once we reach sales goals. And next year we can launch on GOG, Steam, Origin, Etc. as well?"
"Where do I sign?"

I don't blame anyone involved, EGS wants to be king, and the devs want a sure payday, but I don't trust EGS and Tencent with my library or my CC info.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,127
I mean ... Half Life is not really a good example since that's literally their game and they can do what they want with it. But exclusives are definitely annoying for the consumer.

First party exclusives are still not great, but less offensive than 3rd party ones. Ultimately I wouldn't even really call Half Life Alyx and exclusive though - it isn't by contract. Also, GOG is unable to support a lot of the VR development APIs and features (even though Steam released SteamVR / OpenVR as open source) and doesn't sell many VR titles at all! Its not so much even a refusal for Valve to let GOG sell HL Alyx, but rather it seems GOG (and GOG Galaxy) doesn't offer the technical features necessary to support VR - to say nothing about Alyx being one of the more advanced VR titles, we don't even see older games like Arizona Sunshine available on GOG for VR, or VR support / config natively in Galaxy 2.0, to my knowledge anyway.

Ultimately the more we can do to break away from exclusives (especially by contract) the better.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,150
Their platform sucks. Say you have Epic 30 games installed on a separate game/data drive and you want to reinstall Windows. After reinstalling Windows and the Epic client, the client DOES NOT DETECT your 30 games. You have to jump through hoops to get each and every game recognized again or else you have to redownload each game.

Steam, GOG, and to a certain extent Ubisoft do not have a problem with this scenario.
I'll go one further... you can share your Windows steam drive with your Linux install. :) I mean I would stay away from mounting your windows drive and gaming off it... but I keep my second NVME for steam games. Good use for that inexpensive Intel NVME I picked up.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,150
30% is nothing when Publishers used to take it all, often including ownership of the IP, and maybe give the devs crumbs if they made their sales numbers inside a certain time frame. And once your game was off the shelf for the next new thing, it was pretty much gone forever unless it was actually popular. Steam changed that.
EGS does not take 30% because they are not in a position to take 30%. It's not because they don't want to. It's because their service is not worth that 30%. Most devs seem to believe Steam is, unless EGS actually pays them to think otherwise.

"So, you are saying you are going to give us X millions to give you a timed exclusive, regardless of actual sales, and then you get 15% of sales once we reach sales goals. And next year we can launch on GOG, Steam, Origin, Etc. as well?"
"Where do I sign?"

I don't blame anyone involved, EGS wants to be king, and the devs want a sure payday, but I don't trust EGS and Tencent with my library or my CC info.

Exactly all the gamers buying into the 30% !!!! WTF Bs marketing from Epic... forget what game publishing was before Steam. Valve got big enough off a couple hits to start calling some of their own shots... and what they did was find away to free smaller developers from the shackles of a publisher. Games developed by one or two people... who can reach millions of potential customers is possible today thanks to steam. No small developer is going to build a 20GB unreal engine game and distribute it themselves the Bandwidth alone would cost them a lot more then 30 points never mind marketing and all the other community stuff steam offers.

30% is a steal for what Valve offers smaller developers. Even for the bigger developers 30% to not have to worry about all the server issues of pushing modern games is a good deal. Obviously everyone would rather pay 15%... but 15 years ago a smallish developers of less then 100 employees was probably dealing with a larger publisher that was taking a hell of a lot more then 30%. Perhaps over a sales target the developer got rich... but if the game didn't make big money a lot of those small developers got damn near nothing. This is part of the reason it used to be some what easy for the Sony Microsoft EAs of the world to swoop in and buy developers that had hit games for next to nothing.

Steam offered a lot of smaller developers a lot of freedom for 30% no matter if they sold a couple thousand copies or a million.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,778
To me the only way to really overtake Steam is having quite a few top notch hit games to come out that people want to play. Cant rely on all that fortnight money from the kiddies for too long.
 

Balkroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
314
I don't really mind EGS that much, I use it for a few games I've purchased, yes I grabbed them there because of sales or timed exclusivity, but can't really complain. I do have a lot of free stuff as well, so yey?
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,035
First party exclusives are still not great, but less offensive than 3rd party ones. Ultimately I wouldn't even really call Half Life Alyx and exclusive though - it isn't by contract. Also, GOG is unable to support a lot of the VR development APIs and features (even though Steam released SteamVR / OpenVR as open source) and doesn't sell many VR titles at all! Its not so much even a refusal for Valve to let GOG sell HL Alyx, but rather it seems GOG (and GOG Galaxy) doesn't offer the technical features necessary to support VR - to say nothing about Alyx being one of the more advanced VR titles, we don't even see older games like Arizona Sunshine available on GOG for VR, or VR support / config natively in Galaxy 2.0, to my knowledge anyway.

Ultimately the more we can do to break away from exclusives (especially by contract) the better.
I can understand first party titles, even though I find it annoying. Timed exclusives I find incredibly grating.
 

TekRok

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
2,237
The fact that majority of people are saying they are only using Epic because of free games, and not spending a dime on their platform should tell you everything you need to know. No matter which way you spin in, its just bad from a business perspective and as a whole.

I remember Epic had a whole laundry list of features they were planning to implement and that was YEARS ago. It seems nothing was done. So whats the point of the so called "competitor"? Are they a a charity giving out money to Dev studios?
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,746
All they have to do is properly finish and develop Unreal Tournament, and give it the same kind of love that Fortnite has gotten, along with the best graphics of any game in the world (HINT: re-write the entire game and use Unreal Engine 5 as a showcase for the new technology) and just sit back and watch the money flow.

Unreal used to be a showcase of next gen tech, much like the id tech engines were. They need to go back to that. A mod friendly game with a "tournament spec" specification for official maps and modes for esports, with full mod and dedicated server support for customs, and a robust anti hacking system would be "Shut up and Take My Money."
 
Top