Epic Games Store - the console war comes to PC

[Morgoth]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

It wouldn't happen to be DRM-free in the Epic Store, would it?

Who gives a shit when it's free?

 

[LESS T_T]

So among these Epic exclusives, Ashen looks the best received (and probably best selling?) game. Not surprisingly it's climbing up Steam's top wishlist chart, currently at #21. I think it was at the second or third page last time I checked.

This game could be a top seller on Steam. Makes me wonder if Epic paid them enough to make up the hypothetical revenues.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

I'd rather pirate it than install tencent spyware

 

[Viata]

After seeing Epic, Discord realized them doing 70/30 was a mistake. Now they do 90/10: https://blog.discordapp.com/why-not-90-10-3761ebef4eab

Is not discord just some voice and text chat sotftware?

 

[KazikluBey]

They entered the game selling business earlier this year, I think.

 

[Turjan]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

It wouldn't happen to be DRM-free in the Epic Store, would it?

It looks like it.

If you use the desktop shortcut that is produced during installation for Subnautica, it will launch the Epic launcher. If you start with the exe in the installation folder (or make the shortcut the old-fashioned way), it won't.

You can only install the game via the launcher though.

 

[Metro]

Next up, Gabe goes to 91/9 split.

 

[Alienman]

91/9 and 3 artefact cards (1 good, 2 okay).

 

[Drakron]

There are benefits to the consumer in a competitive marketplace

Yes as long said competition actually benefits the consumer.

Its closest competitors Uplay and Origin just aren't on its level in terms of support & features.

Actually uPlay is required for Ubisoft games but Ubisoft doesnt restrict their titles to just the uPlay store, they are sold in not only Steam but Origin as well.
None challenged Steam because for the consumer there were no real benefits, they dont offer better deals and I dont think they even offer regional pricing (that Steam did and does because its competing with local stores), Origin was hilarious as they made their games exclusive to Origin and I suspect one of the reasons why sales are down on their titles in PC is because the lack of exposure to a wider audience since they just related to their own store.

but if Epic Games provide a better service and Steam refuse to adapt, who knows? They could be a threat within a few years.

They wont because they are courting developers and being anti-consumer because developers dont want refunds, they dont want user reviews and Epic isnt even offering support, maybe thats why their split is so generous as its a shitty store to buy from because all you get is the same prices as in other stores and no support at all.

Also they started with "exclusives" thats the same shit consoles have to deal, we already get that with EA and Origin and do we really want every fucking online store offering "exclusives"? Do you want Activision to suddenly remember they could push for Battle.net being their exclusive launcher and then we start the same shit in consoles but now in PCs with fucking launchers?

NONE will improve because why the fuck do that when all they need to do is the same as EA with Origin, make games exclusives to their own store with their own launcher? Ubisoft seem to think what EA did was a mistake since they sell their shit anywhere that takes it (not GoG since DRM) but then you have Square-Enix and Activision that could very well decide to start going with exclusives.

Its not a question of they can make a better store because EA could also stop being retarded and sell their games in other stores like Ubisoft does and still require Origin like Ubisoft does ... its a question of their strategy being the same as EA with Origin, getting exclusives so you have to use their store and as EA only did with their own titles and its fucking EA games so who cares right? Epic is looking at other companies and trying a divide et impera were its not offering a better deal for consumers so they use their store but rather making so consumers having to use their store and since Epic have no games (no, really ... heck their catalog and you see their last proper game was Bulletstorm) they will just bribe smaller developers into exclusives, why compete when you can just monopolize? Will it work? I doubt it as its more likely any success will just trigger another wave of online storefronts with their own launchers and all with exclusives.

 

[DeepOcean]

My prediction:
1 - they start bribing game developers for exclusives.
2 - game developers realize that if they sell big, the bribe is nowhere near the lost sales revenue and if they sell too little, they don't have the hype effect Epic was hoping and releasing their games exclusively to the Epic Store is a death sentence.
3 - Epic and Valve decide to do first party exclusive games to fuel their console store war.
4 - Unreal 3 vs Half - Life 3?

 

[Turjan]

There are benefits to the consumer in a competitive marketplace

Yes as long said competition actually benefits the consumer.

Its closest competitors Uplay and Origin just aren't on its level in terms of support & features.

Actually uPlay is required for Ubisoft games but Ubisoft doesnt restrict their titles to just the uPlay store, they are sold in not only Steam but Origin as well.
None challenged Steam because for the consumer there were no real benefits, they dont offer better deals and I dont think they even offer regional pricing (that Steam did and does because its competing with local stores), Origin was hilarious as they made their games exclusive to Origin and I suspect one of the reasons why sales are down on their titles in PC is because the lack of exposure to a wider audience since they just related to their own store.

Indeed. I use both, Uplay and Origins, but I never bought a single thing in the attached stores. I took the freebies and entered keys I got elsewhere (bundles, other stores). That said, I don't really buy that much on Steam itself, either. With this Epic store, it's a different issue. They want to force you to buy your games there. It's like the Microsoft store with its exclusives. I won't buy any exclusives (or anything at all) on either store, because I won't support such practices.

 

[GrainWetski]

Next up, Gabe goes to 91/9 split.

Gabe: "If your game is on the Epic store, you can't have your game on Steam"

And the next day, Epic closed their store.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If Epic is paying companies to exclusively sell at their store then it's not even legal in many US states.

 

[Alex]

It's certainly an interesting development but anyone can launch a digital store. Steam charges 30% for access to a bajillion paying customers, not for the store itself. While 12% is certainly very enticing for developers, but what's in it for the players? If they can't attract and keep millions of daily players, Steam has nothing to worry about.

Yeah, I guess, even with Epic's major advantages (the owner of Unreal Engine, existing relationships with game developers, Fortnite) over other contenders, building a viable platform would require a long-term dedication (client and community features, stability, exclusives).

These are very weak advantages. Developers will gladly sell their wares on any platform that has at least 5% of the market, because 70% of something is always better than 100% of nothing. They don't need special relationships and better deals, although better deals are always nice. It's all about the players, but it would take more than stability (as that's what players expect by default) and exclusives (they can play your exclusive if they absolutely have to and then go back to Steam) to lure even 15-20% of players away from Steam and I can't guess what it might possibly be. Judging by the quote below, Epic doesn't know either:

From the gamer's perspective, why should they shop at the Epic store as opposed to the marketplaces they already buy from?

It’s a lightweight storefront that’s convenient to use, and gives developers a better deal.

Lightweight storefront sounds pretty good to me. The Steam Client is an awful resource hog.

 

[Reinhardt]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

I'd rather pirate it thEn install tencent spyware

fixed

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

I'd rather pirate it thEn install tencent spyware

fixed

'than' was the correct word.

 

[Reinhardt]

Subnautica is for free on the Epic Store. Well here's an excuse to install another installer.

I'd rather pirate it thEn install tencent spyware

fixed

'than' was the correct word.

But "then" is much better option.

 

[Metro]

It's certainly an interesting development but anyone can launch a digital store. Steam charges 30% for access to a bajillion paying customers, not for the store itself. While 12% is certainly very enticing for developers, but what's in it for the players? If they can't attract and keep millions of daily players, Steam has nothing to worry about.

Yeah, I guess, even with Epic's major advantages (the owner of Unreal Engine, existing relationships with game developers, Fortnite) over other contenders, building a viable platform would require a long-term dedication (client and community features, stability, exclusives).

These are very weak advantages. Developers will gladly sell their wares on any platform that has at least 5% of the market, because 70% of something is always better than 100% of nothing. They don't need special relationships and better deals, although better deals are always nice. It's all about the players, but it would take more than stability (as that's what players expect by default) and exclusives (they can play your exclusive if they absolutely have to and then go back to Steam) to lure even 15-20% of players away from Steam and I can't guess what it might possibly be. Judging by the quote below, Epic doesn't know either:

From the gamer's perspective, why should they shop at the Epic store as opposed to the marketplaces they already buy from?

It’s a lightweight storefront that’s convenient to use, and gives developers a better deal.

Lightweight storefront sounds pretty good to me. The Steam Client is an awful resource hog.

Resource hog? Maybe if you're running a ten year old system.

 

[Alex]

Resource hoggin is resource hogging, no matter what system you use. Compare Steam to Gog, which has no need for a client or anything extra running with your game.

 

[Metro]

Well here's some more information on this 'lightweight' storefront. I installed it the other day and there seems to be a grand total of 16 games all displayed on the front page (in that horrible mobile phone varying rectangle display). Under the store tab there are no sub-menus. There is no search function. Most of the links simply open a browser to the Epic/Unreal home page. There are no forums in the client. And there's no mythical direct e-mail to developers that Travis Baldree claimed there was for 'improved communication.'

This client looks like it was thrown together in about a week just to rush something up in time for the holidays. So, yeah, I guess given those considerations it's 'lightweight.'

 

[Turjan]

Well here's some more information on this 'lightweight' storefront. I installed it the other day and there seems to be a grand total of 16 games all displayed on the front page (in that horrible mobile phone varying rectangle display).

Note that half of those say "coming soon". I think you can only buy 5 or 6 games.

 

[Lutte]

Resource hoggin is resource hogging, no matter what system you use. Compare Steam to Gog, which has no need for a client or anything extra running with your game.

It's a common misconception that to release on steam you need to tie the game to Steam's DRM and infrastructure. There's a few games on steam that can run without the steam client running. If a game launches only with the steam client it's because the dev wanted it, whether for the DRM or for the many frameworks Steam provides.

And there are games on GOG that actually require galaxy, the gog client, if you want to play online.

The fact is, Steam brings a ton of value to the table for a dev. Controller management that supports everything under the sun (ds4, nintendo's pads etc besides just the standard 360) with advanced rebinds, multiplatform frameworks that runs on all three main desktop OSes and now proton that allows to squeeze a bit more money from the few linux gamers that can now buy your game with no real effort to port them, cloud saves etc etc. It's also not surprising how often games got their patches first on steam before gog.
Steam also doesn't pretend to be a curator of sorts, there's a decent amount of good games that didn't make it to gog despite dev interest like some of Digica's shmups because gog rejected them.

I really don't care for this epic chinesium garbage store. Some idiot indies are going to be seduced and sell nothing on this shit platform then go back crying to daddy.

 

[Turjan]

This. What I described above, how "DRM-free" works on the Epic store as seen from the example Subnautica, is exactly the same as it works on Steam for DRM-free titles.

 

[Alex]

Resource hoggin is resource hogging, no matter what system you use. Compare Steam to Gog, which has no need for a client or anything extra running with your game.

It's a common misconception that to release on steam you need to tie the game to Steam's DRM and infrastructure. There's a few games on steam that can run without the steam client running. If a game launches only with the steam client it's because the dev wanted it, whether for the DRM or for the many frameworks Steam provides.

And there are games on GOG that actually require galaxy, the gog client, if you want to play online.

That may be, but it still remains that a lot of the same games I can buy on Steam and GOG will only have the annoying Steam features bundled on the Steam version. Whether that is Steam's or the dev's fault changes nothing to me. If the Epic client is less heavy, or even better, if they have a culture of not bundling those with the store's games, that would be a point in their favor that Steam lacks.

The fact is, Steam brings a ton of value to the table for a dev. Controller management that supports everything under the sun (ds4, nintendo's pads etc besides just the standard 360) with advanced rebinds, multiplatform frameworks that runs on all three main desktop OSes and now proton that allows to squeeze a bit more money from the few linux gamers that can now buy your game with no real effort to port them, cloud saves etc etc. It's also not surprising how often games got their patches first on steam before gog.

With the exception of patches, none of those things interest me as a buyer. And while the patches do matter, I do prefer that GOG allows me to download and install them on my own rather than trying to do so through the client.

Steam also doesn't pretend to be a curator of sorts, there's a decent amount of good games that didn't make it to gog despite dev interest like some of Digica's shmups because gog rejected them.

Maybe the should curate; there is a ton of junk on Steam. If they at least had standards, it would make using a client rather than a website more sensible.

I really don't care for this epic chinesium garbage store. Some idiot indies are going to be seduced and sell nothing on this shit platform then go back crying to daddy.

Did Epic get bought by the Chinese?

 

[Aemar]

Some idiot indies are going to be seduced and sell nothing on this shit platform then go back crying to daddy.

No doubt this will be the outcome eventually given the fact this platform seems to cater mainly to snowflake devs. Bunch of suckers.