I hate when a PC game is ONLY available on Epic Games store
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
725
Comments570
An exclusive on Epic Games may as well just not even exist, as far as I'm concerned. Didn't play Anno 1800 until it was finally released on Steam. Nice discount too.
So they still got your money eventually. That's a double win, in their eyes.
They lose day 1 hype, tho. Sure, the game eventually comes to steam, but that's after it's already been overplayed on twitch and YouTube'd to death.
In what way does that matter outside of driving sales? Which people like op happily still gave them?
It's not "new". There is no FOMO. Early adopters for games are a large chunk of sales.
If that was actually a concern, why would companies do it at all?
Why do companies do exclusive launches? Presumably they think the money they get from Epic is more than the money they'll lose in sales. Whether or not they're right is another question.
Basicaly they do not think their game is any good. So if someone takes the deal. I instantly loose interest. I mean if even the developer think it is no fun...
Congrats on getting the point.
In what way is that a "double win"?
In what way is it not? They get Epic's money for exclusivity and know they'll still get sales after it ends from people that "boycott" them for doing that.
Buying the game later doesn't hurt them, it just reinforces the same behavior later.
Getting Epic's money isn't a slam dunk for profit. You're hedging your bets taking guaranteed Epic money for lower potential sales vs non-guaranteed Steam money for higher potential sales. Having a bad exclusivity deal on Epic and then selling your game at a loss (90% discount) on steam isn't profiting both ways, and sometimes isn't profiting either way.
I also disagree with the sentiment that you're reinforcing bad behavior. If anything, you're signalling to them that you won't support exclusivity deals, and are happy to wait for a deep discount on Steam. Ultimately, that's a win for consumers.
That said, fuck exclusivity deals, and I'm much in the same boat where I'm hard pressed to support developers that take them.
Unless they're actively losing money in their deal, they're not gonna care if the sale comes immediately or years later. If Epic exclusive + late "hold outs" = $$$, they're just gonna do that until the equation changes.
It's less money in their pockets and more money in ours. That's not going to be a double win in their books.
Nobody ever hurt a company or made them reconsider their decisions by giving them money, no matter how little it was.
Economists cannot predict the future, as much as some people might wish they could.
Whatever break even point the devs of Anno 1800 considered when making the decision between releasing only on Epic and releasing to all platforms may have seemed reasonable at the time the devs were gearing up to release the game, but performance of said game is never guaranteed. Sure you may have statistics to influence things one way or another, but it's still a gamble.
We don't know if Epic exclusive + late discounts > full game purchases on all platforms specifically for Anno 1800, and it appears that you're claiming which way that equation points with no evidence. Do you work for Epic? For Ubisoft? For Blue Byte? Are there public sources pointing to game sales? What research are you pulling from that considers game futures?
I will respect that you're right about predicting devs' decisions based on which way that equation points. Everyone is downvoting you though because you're making it seem like you know the answer when clearly there's more to this game, and financial gaming decisions like this.
You're not an expert. You're a chatter. Unless you can prove otherwise.
That's not what a boycott is. If I don't buy a game because it's exclusively on Epic, it's not because I'm taking a moral stance. It's because it's invisible to me.
A boycott is when I don't play Epic/EA/Unisoft/Blizzard-Activism games for the company's historic shitty behavior.
I'm aware of what an actual boycott is.
It would be except I forgot it existed while it was in purgatory on Epic
if it was discounted then they didn't get as much money.
And? It's still profit. If it weren't, it wouldn't be listed.
and... instead of getting $60 immediately, they are getting $30 or whatever later. clearly one is better than the other, no?
Profit matters on a quarterly basis.
If a company gets the full profit of their game as they predicted they might in 1 quarter, then that's basically the best case scenario.
If instead that full profit is spread of multiple years, then quater-to-quarter the game might look like it is underperforming, or severely so.
The timing of profit matters just as much as how much profit there is. Time value of money is a pretty useful concept in the financial world.
When I see sales of Playstation games on PC the numbers are very underwhelming compared to other big third party titles. In contrast helldivers 2 got insane numbers when it launched simultaneously.
I don't think launch hype sales can be overlooked and how much may potentially be lost. If people are willing to wait then by the time game is available hype is less and it's more likely for people to move on or wait for even steeper sales.
I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me about it. I'm not the one deciding to sell out to Epic.
If I like the game then good for them. Epic didn't get any of my money and they're the one I have an issue with.
You need a better definition of „they“. Because I don’t buy from Epic for one particular reason, so they (Epic) don’t get my money. If the game is good and I want to play it I will do so later and at that point the developer still deserves my money.
Well they decide to lose customers, up to them.
Yep. I loved Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, and was excielted to hear they made a sequel. Then I learned it's an EGS exclusive. They can go get bent, not buying from them anymore
TIL, they made a soasr sequel. Was it good?
No idea, I refuse to buy it. The first one was good.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1575940/Sins_of_a_Solar_Empire_II/
It's on steam now
I am aware. They're still not getting my money
If you refuse to buy on Epic, you send the message that you don't like to buy from Epic.
If you refuse to buy after it hits steam, then you're just 1 of several billion who didn't buy the game.
Why would you continue to not buy?
No, you have it backwards. If people buy the game when it goes on Steam, that tells the developer they can double dip buy going Epic exclusive then releasing at full price on Steam a year later with no repurcussions.
The only way to make the publisher learn to not go Epic exclusive is to not buy those games at all, even after they are brought onto other marketplaces
If it's on epic it just isn't on PC in my eyes. Not a real game
If it's not a real game, should we call it an unreal game? I will see myself out...
Epic joke.
It's always available on the high seas.
Yeah, but frankly the high seas usually provide less than Steam does even with money in the equation. And that's probably the only case when high seas is worse, with all the other services in my experience the high seas provide better service(spotify was close). So the point is if a game doesn't release on Steam it's release date just moves to the moment it releases on Steam. Not the best scenario, but Steam really has little competition and Epic surely isn't trying to be one.
I have no problem with Steam. I was mainly talking about games that only (don't) come out on Epic Store, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
I haven't kept up, what does it do worse than steam?
Pretty much everything really. It’s basically a store and that’s it, no cool features that Steam has. They may have achievements now but not positive. Think it took two years just for them to add a shopping cart. They dump money on developers to release exclusively on Epic instead of spending it making a good experience for customers. No reviews, no forums, no workshop etc.
I grab the free games they offer every couple weeks and use Heroic to play them, not touching their launcher.
not to mention steam's:
screenshot manager
community card trading
friends & chat
easy to join small muliplayer (friends can just send you a button that launches the game and joins them instantly)
highly customisable profiles
tools & soundtracks
achievemnts
and so much more that can be simply small little fun
SteamVR is great also, provides a native VR system that Epic doesn't have
Don’t forget: Ability to see your library on the website
This is huge for me
They do have achievements, yeah. Not much else though.
Copying my reply to someone else:
Epic is anti-customer: https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7
Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying "we'd love to host your game" for an exclusivity deal.
Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
Epic replies that they aren't interested if it's not exclusive.
This tells me that
You can add that their client was actually a malware at some time.
Everything but I will focus on the main point of the apps. Selling and managing games.
Steam store page has tags for what genre the game is and user reviews as well as information about system requirements. Plus links to click on to go to the developers and publishers pages to see what else they've made. You get plenty of information while it's still easy on the eyes and digestible.
Managing your games with steam is a breeze. They're listed down the side and the search is there and quick. Click on a game and get more information about it and see a large install or play button. Scroll down to see info about the latest update or activity from friends playing. Right click to get more information like where it's installed locally.
Epic, at least when I last used it. Didn't have user reviews, the page had large widgets for all the information making everything feel clutter while giving you less info about the game. Didn't have tags and sure it did label the publisher but not the developers and you couldn't click to see their other works.
Epic's library management once again large widgets while giving less information. Feels cluttered. Install button is small. At the time I used epic there was not easy way to open install location. You had to go in file explorer yourself and find it.
While I'm on the topic of stores to why do console store pages suck as well compared to steam?! The console is literally sold at a loss and make money by selling you games but their store pages are shit compared to steam.
Yeah, the point of a PC is to be independent of any company.
Epic pays for exclusivity sometimes. It’s funny, I keep picking up the free epic games but I don’t think I have ever once played a single game on there.
I claim but I don't even have the launcher installed. If it wasn't for the giveaways I'd completely forget about the place.
I don't even get the free games...they aren't worth my time. I'll pay to get them elsewhere instead even if it's free there when I'm looking
I'm claiming them for the day when Epic games store shuts down and they give out keys for redeemed games on steam. I'm playing the long game. :D
Bethesda did that after shutting down their launcher.
I just download the games that are drm free (which is actually quite a lot) and put a zip archive on my backup drive(s)
I just use the heroic/legendary alternative launcher for any single player games I actually want to play from egs. It’s open source and gives epic less footprint on my machine.
Unfortunately if you want to do anything multiplayer then you need the real client.
I've been picking them up religiously after I found out I missed Frostpunk. The only ones I've played were the big names like Control, Death Standing, and the old Fallout games. For everything else, the client doesn't give you enough information to decide if it's worth your time or not. I keep having to go back and forth between Epic and Steam to read reviews and the "similar to other games you've played" thing. It's not worth the effort.
Literally anything besides not getting that game?
I recently discovered that I can buy, download, and launch games from my Epic Games library without having the Epic Games Bloatware even installed.
Heroic Games Launcher serves as a storefront, installer, and launcher for Epic Games, GOG, and Amazon.
If a game is only released on Epic, it hasn't been released yet. Its just in some weird alpha state until it has broader release.
I say this every time Epic comes up but it remains the same.
Steam is the pro-consumer storefront. Epic is the pro-developer storefront. What Epic seems to fail to understand is that by being so staunchly pro-developer, they effectively become anti-consumer. And as a consumer, I'm just not going to spend money on an anti-consumer marketplace.
When Epic considers adding necessary pro-consumer measures like actual user reviews so I can hear how a game actual performs from real end users, then and only then will I consider Epic a real storefront viable for consumers.
I think their historically-bad UE5 documentation and laser focus on adding features optimized for Fortnite but terrible for other uses beg to differ.
They're the pro-shareholder storefront. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Epic's main selling point was it's lower storefront fee (15% vs 30%, if I recall). It didn't offer any other benefits for consumers and I think Epic realised rather quickly that the people who are actually supposed to be paying money for all of this are the buyers and not the sellers, and thus they've resorted to strategies like making games "exclusive" or trying to bribe players with free games.
Pro-developer never needs to be anti-consumer. They are staunchly both right now.
I agree they don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-developer, but my point is that that is how they are approaching being pro-developer - by limiting pro-consumer features at the behest of developers. Or perhaps I should be saying more actively publishers, to be fair.
I understand that they are pro-developers, like, they only tale 15% of the sales etc. But why are they anti-consumers?
I use Heroic Games Launcher on Nobara Linux and my experience is more seamless than buying and installing games from Steam. I don't have to bother with Epic Games Launcher, I just download a game and run via proton or wine.
The fact that you can't use the Epic games launcher on Linux should be telling you what you need to know.
How is their 12 foot interface these days?
How is their position on running things via wine? Tim the bellend has generally been telling Linux users to use wine, but at the same time been generally hostile to it.
And it used to work better on Linux, until the Steam Deck got announced.
Yep. Fucking hypocrite tells people to use something he is hostile towards.
Fuck Epic, they are destroying PC gaming which means they are not developer friendly.
They are actively trying to shrink the market that developers can target.
"Fucking hypocrite" and "Epic Games". Never have any other set of 4 words fit together so perfectly.
I gave what I see as a significant example in my original comment. Not being able to see comments or reviews from those who have purchased games through the storefront is a problem for me. If a game has a bug or problem, especially if it is one that could potentially be tied to or unique to the EGS version, I would like to know about it. That EGS currently doesn't provide readily available user feedback when it frankly has been the standard as defined by steam, just doesn't for me.
So you have to ask yourself why they wouldn't include such a simple a rudimentary feature - the only result I can come up with is to appease developers who want to prevent being negatively impacted by bad reviews. Thus what we have is prioritizing the wants of developers at the expense of features which benefit consumers.
I'm annoyed when a game isn't on GOG. Epic's issue is that I use it the least and so I'm less likely to boot up a game on it unless I'm actively seeking it out.
One of the annoying thing about epic exclusives is that the focus is on steam, but GOG is affected too and loses out on games too until the deal expires.
Steam is their scapegoat, they want a Monopoly without having to say they have a Monopoly.
Wait, who want a monopoly? Epic? The Epic store is like a tenth of Steam's size, and most of that is down to Fortnite alone. Hard to have a monopoly when you're struggling to break double digit share.
... right, which is why I said they want a monopoly, not that they have a monopoly.
Well, yeah, presumably they all do. I'm sure the kebab place next door would love to have a monopoly, it just doesn't look like it's in the cards, you know?
Yes, and if the kebab store pitched a fit every time someone provided a better product than them, calling that competition a monopolist, I'd have the same criticism of that kebab shop.
If they're just doing their best to provide a quality product... I wouldn't like that they have a monopoly, but if they're not in any way abusing it... that sounds like they've earned their place. The problem lies in the people not putting forth enough effort (despite have the resources to do so) to match.
Kebab store if they were epic like in their strategy would not be throwing a fit, but making exclusivity deals with suppliers so that their competitors in the area lose access to them. So trying to increase consumers having to go to their kebab store to get specific meals due to inability of other stores to offer it or not retain the same quality anymore. Also look into regulations to try and prevent potential competitors from opening up next to them or at least delay when they can open.
No, that's not how that works at all. Monopolies are bad (and indeed unlawful) even if people think you got them by being super cool.
Google didn't get a monopoly on advertising and search by sucking at it. They had the best search engine and design in a crowded market and that's why you don't say you "Altavista'd" something. But that's still a bad thing and they still should get broken up into manageable chunks, as current regulators are trying to do. Ditto for Apple and all these other oligopolistic online companies.
And... you know, Valve. Maybe. At some point. Not quite there yet. But that's bad even if you like Steam or if they have the better feature set. Which they do. Especially if they have the better feature set, in fact, because like all these other oligopolistic companies, the more time they have to establish dominance and get people to sink further into their ecosystem the harder it is to break it up later. That's true of kebabs AND software platforms.
People who hate on Steam alternatives want a monopoly
No, people who back monopolistic, anti-consumer companies like EGS want a monopoly.
If you actually look, nobody ever complains about GOG or Itch.io. That's because they don't pull anticompetitive bullshit like the paid exclusives that EGS relies on
You think Steam isn't a monopoly?
Read my comment again
The company providing an actual alternative to steam's real monopoly is not the one to be complaining about
Are they providing an actual alternative, or just creating a pseudo alternative then bitching about how someone else gets more attention?
It is, in fact, an alternative to steam. What a stupid thing to say
Epic is nowhere near as good as steam. Steam I can open, leave open and ignore. Epic force refreshes pages like the fucking library and then my internet cracks a fit at the sudden large data draw.
Shop wise both are equal, epic now has reviews on the bottom of games so you don't buy some 1 star trash without warning, but they are both more than just a shop.
I'm not sure what you're responding to, but it wasn't anyone I said
Anyone believing Steam isn't a monopoly is seriously uninformed on the topic or letting their enjoy enjoyment of the platform cloud their view of reality.
While it sucks to have games get exclusivity agreements with EGS when EGS sucks compared to Steam, it doesn't suddenly mean that Steam isn't a monopoly.
Except they're trying to strongarm people into using it by using huge amounts of money to buy exclusivity rights.
People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers. But steam provides a very user friendly experience with lots of benefits and features like mod hosting, remote play together, etc. Epic provides a store that people hate using, and people only put up with because epic abused fortnite's success to buy exclusivity deals*. Despite being the much smaller storefront, Epic already feels like the abusive monopoly in the PC gaming space.
*Many people also play on Epic because of free games, which is a valid and pro-consumer way to attract users. I'm 100% cool with this strategy, although giving away merchandise at a loss is also a common monopoly strategy.
With regards to
It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/the-antitrust-lawsuit-against-steam-is-now-a-class-action-and-that-could-have-big-repercussions-for-valve/
Also relevant, from 2021 but the same lawsuit,
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/
I like Steam, I'm not hating on Steam, but rushing to defend it from people saying it's a monopoly (or calling Epic Games Store a monopoly) is very much denying reality.
Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it's not an business model to point to, since it's subsidized by unreal and fortnite.
Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.
One actually better to point to might be GOG which is also taking 30%, but in 2021 had a 1 million dollar loss. https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.
All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy
That 30% is standard for most storefronts. Just look at Google Play and Apple's App Store.
If you're that put off by 30% cuts then don't look into retail stores because their markups make that look like chump change.
Actually, it's generally publishers, not developers that end up paying the 30% cut. For most games the developer gets paid upfront by the publisher, and the publisher pockets the difference between development costs and sales. I'd also like to point out that prices between EGS and Steam are generally the same, so instead of getting lower priced games as promised, the publishers are just pocketing the larger profits.
Repeat Tim Swiney's fake talking points all you want, the fact of the matter is that Valve isn't behaving like a monopoly, even if they command a huge portion of the market. The reason they're so big in the first place is specifically because they're very pro-consumer
I'm keeping the model simple by equating publisher with developer. Basically, you've got the consumer, the store, and the supplier. That some (most) developer studios go through a publisher for funding is a business practice that's actually unrelated to Steam. Especially because they allow indie content.
That's the same as app stores/etc, and is still a common cut to take. I'm not convinced the cuts that Epic is taking are actually sustainable for offering downloads/updates/etc for a game indefinitely, but it's hard to tell since the Epic store is already bleeding money.
I'll also mention that Audible (which has a monopoly in the audiobook space) reportably takes a 60-75% cut of audiobooks sold on their platform (they take only 60% if you agree to sell exclusively on audible, but they take the full 75% if you want to sell the book somewhere else as well). Monopolies abusing their position is really common, but I haven't seen anything similar from Steam that makes me think they're abusing their position. I suspect PC gaming would be in a far worse state if another company controlled the popular storefront.
Would you do your job and maybe receive an income but only years later, based on results and how happy you made your boss?
The devs and publishers who sign those deals are the ones you should be angry at, Epic is offering them guaranteed income in exchange for timed exclusivity, Valve is offering them access to a bigger player base in exchange for a gamble.
Being a small game dev has a lot of uncertainty and risk. I wouldn't blame any small dev for taking a guaranteed paycheck from Epic. Larger studios with safe prospects should be blamed though imo. Gearbox with Borderlands 3 for example.
Doesn't matter the size of the studio, in the end they have people to pay and Steam is asking them to take a gamble in the hope that they'll make enough to compensate the money they spent. We've seen but studios crash and burn, hell Sony wasted home many millions on that game that was online for a couple of days? I'm sure they would have been happy to have gotten a cheque instead of nothing!
And that's why I don't buy games from those devs and publishers
https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7
Well, yeah, but if I was going to get pissed about that, then Epic would be way low in my list of priorities. It's Steam sucking up all the oxygen in that particular room. I own every Yakuza game they made available on GOG and they've stopped doing that. That wasn't Epic.
Sounds like that was Sega.
Oh, it was Sega. That's the thing about having an entrenched dominant position, you don't need to invest money to get exclusives, even when you are paying out a smaller share.
Gaben may be a libertarian, but I'm not. If you set up systemic reasons why I'm getting boned it's still your fault.
So the systemic reason of... providing a quality storefront? Are you demanding that they just make things shittier so that other people have a chance?
This has got to be the most twisted criticism of Steam I've ever heard...
I... wait, what?
So are you okay with exclusives but only when the developer is not getting paid for it? Or only when it's on Steam because you just happen to like Steam?
That's such a weird take. It owns the inconsistency so thoroughly I have trouble navigating it.
Since apparently I have to explain this for some reason, I don't particularly like exclusives in general and prefer platform-agnostic games so I can pick where to get them. but if you're only going to support a store, I'm perfectly fine with developers getting paid by Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic or whever else. You do you and keep your workers employed any way you see fit.
And when I get a choice I tend to pick GOG because... well, they don't need a little reminder that you're not buying the game you're buying in the payment page, so I get to back up my installers and keep them forever.
Now, THAT is a criticsm of Steam that I'm actually making here.
I generally am less bothered by exclusives that are a result of a company deciding to not release at a certain storefront as opposed to being bribed and contractually prevented from releasing elsewhere after signing. Those at least have a chance of being released somewhere else if they change their mind.
Like Yakuza was a console exclusive for a long time but not because Sony forced them to. So when they decided PC games was worth venturing into they ended up doing so as opposed to being contractually prevented. Same goes for Persona.
That's the difference from contract based exclusives.
That's called the cost of running a DRM free storefront.
Yakuza collection didn't release until 2023. Companies usually do delayed releases when sales are on a downward trend if they end up releasing on GOG. And that's a big if because of no DRM requirements.
Unless you are a recent user of GOG, delayed releases shouldn't be anything new and has more to do with DRM. If you want DRM free you have to be willing to accept delayed releasing or convince GOG to give up on DRM requirements if you just want games on GOG available right away.
Stuff like denuvo exists because companies are very protective of their assets and are really reluctant to offer DRM free. That's the main obstacles for GOG. DRM.
Yeah. Because Steam has DRM. Steam IS DRM. That's the problem it originally solved, back when Amazon was still a bookstore.
So screw Steam and other overprotective corporations, I want my PC games DRM-free, since physical copies aren't an option (which is my console solution, thank you very much). They can come meet my requirements or I will continue to prioritize GOG where I can and be annoyed at the lack of a GOG release otherwise. I don't want GOG to give up on the DRM requirement, I want them to get so popular that publishers have to comply with it whether they like it or not.
So from that perspective, if Epic and Steam want to have a pissing contest, I'm in full "let them fight" mode. Who cares.
Sorry but companies were trying DRM even before them using stuff like rotating paper wheels before DRM tech improved. Sony even installed root kits for music CDs. Denuvo was created because it was believed DRM options weren't strong enough and some companies use additional DRM on top of denuvo.
Zero DRM isn't the only reason games aren't published on GOG right away, and that may not even be the main reason for the countless games that release day one without Denuvo.
GOG also doesn't have the best infrastructure for pushing updates. Stories abound of it being a slow process, whether physically uploading the files or authentication taking a while. Invariably, game updates will show up later on GOG than they will on Steam. GOG also has a very consumer-friendly return policy. All that, combined with it being simply a smaller marketplace, doesn't place it well in cost-benefit analysis.
The fact that gog.com let me forego launchers all together as well as letting me download the game installers and put them on my NAS means a lot to me. I don't remember the last time I had GOG Galaxy installed, I just download, install and play the games and then call it a day.
You can go that way. I'd rather have a front-end to manage it, but having the option means you can do it manually, rely on Galaxy or use a third party front-end pretty interchangeably.
If you use GOG Galaxy it has Epic store intergration to launch games, and then closes the app when you quit too. Never have to see the Epic launcher.
Yeah, there are a bunch of third party launchers with integrations. Launchbox will do most PC storefronts.
I wish Galaxy was a bit lighter, though, because once I plug in everything it supports we start getting into five digit counts and the whole thing slows to a crawl. It's a bit better now, but it was borderline unusable at some points.
Yeah it's a bit of a slog with too many but I find it's perfect for Epic and Microsoft games.
Know what happens when I find out a game is Epic exclusive? I don't buy it for a year... Sometimes ever. Enjoy the Epic money kings, hope it's worth it.
IMO if it's exclusive to one store, sailing the seas is morally just.
There are too many games to care about the tiny amount of them that aren't available on steam.
🧲 time
The only games I have on EGS are the ones I collect via Amazon Prime. It's basically a game key graveyard.
But GOG? That's where all the good games come from.
Why not the free weekly epic giveaways as well? There have been some good games for free in the past
I think I got the latest tomb raider trilogy and death stranding, uh, last year or the year before? All free. My perception of time is getting fucky again tho so take that into account.
I got Bear and Breakfast a few weeks ago and that's one I had on my Steam wishlist. Along with quite a few others.
I do feel the slightest bit of guilt whenever I get a have that I definitely would have bought otherwise, especially because I tend to like indie games, but from what I've heard they're paid reasonably well to do it.
Yeah, I was about to buy my wife the tomb raider series (it's one of her faves) for Christmas and then I had to think of a new present. No complaints with that.
gog doesn't have regional pricing and their launcher at this point is worse than epic's. as an old fuck I like having old games back but it's not convenient at all.
Galaxy definitely sucks, but to say it's worse than EGS seems pretty far out there. EGS has been caught snooping around files and taking system logs without notice on top of just being overly resource intensive, totally bare bones and easily broken.
I'm talking user experience. egs used to be the slowest app I've ever used but right now egs starts and works faster for me than gog. also its video player works faster than steam's, by like a mile. I don't know if it's just me because I never hear anyone complain about steam's video player but for me it's so goddamn terrible in so many ways I want to punch a wall every time I'm curious about a game while browsing steam because the video just takes fucking ages to get going and the controls are horrendous. I end up just searching on YouTube.
Heroic Games Launcher is on Windows also. If you buy a game on GOG through the Launcher it even compensates the devs a little bit. Very neat.
Wait, really? I guess I just noticed the affiliate link, I should order through the launcher in the future. It's pretty great.
The way Coffee Stain explained it for satisfactory is that the exclusivity windfall gave them enough runway to finish the game.
If the system of temporary exclusivity in exchange for upfront development cash continues I think it's an overall win for the gaming community as games get to come out at less rushed pace and with potentially less cash generation grabs in the game itself.
I feel the same, when the game is not available on GOG.
Exclusives of any kind are bullshit marketing ploys, at best.
I don't mind it, Steam is nice but I don't want them to have a monopoly on PC games
Exclusivity deals are not exactly a better alternative
Otherwise why would anyone use software they aren't used to? Steam is really good, they've been putting massive resources into making it better for many years, and it has all the network effects.
Epic has a lot of money, they should find a way to offer a better service in some ways like Gog does.
Exclusivity deals are anti-consumer.
So we're using a bad mechanism (exclusivity deals) to make people use an inferior product (Epic vs Steam), but "It's totally going to be better for you in the future bro, trust me!".
I'm sorry, but can we make it sound any more like a scam? It's not quite there yet. Can you add something with crypto or AI or an MLM?
Damn, imagine how good Epic could be if instead of buying exclusives it spent that money on improving itself?
GoG has been a competitor for as long as I can remember. It's not exactly a fair comparison because they mostly carry older games. But you can buy a ton of games off GoG. Itch.io exists, however it's a bit niche. Origin, humble bundle, Microsoft store. You can use all of these and get the majority of the games steam offers. Why don't people? Because steam is just better. Steam has competition. It has a ton. People don't feel that way cause EVERYONE who games on PC buys from steam. But it's not because steam has a monopoly, it's because steam offers more than their competitors, and does it better.
I don't like monopolies. I agree with you. However, a monopoly existing because they are snuffing out the competition and forcing it to be the only option for consumers is different than a monopoly that exists because consumers choose it over and over again because of their pro consumer policies.
Now because this makes it seem like I'm saying "steam is the best", there's a good bit of stuff steam has done that I don't like. But they understand what the gaming scene is and not just see the consumers as cash cows.
Gog does now have a launcher, but you can still download the offline installer files for games.
I edited that part out because as soon as I posted i did a quick fact check. Im just leaving this comment so people don't think you're crazy. You were just really fast to comment.
I am skeptical that this is the main reason (even though it's true and is a reason). I think people don't like the idea of having their games library split across multiple services, and don't like using/learning software they aren't familiar with, or that other people aren't using.
They don't. Buy on gog.
funny you never hear about games being ONLY on steam. it has nice features but riding so hard for a gigantic monopoly is going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires. nothing lasts forever, and we don't know who or what will replace the current structure at valve.
not to mention valve has had its share of anti consumer and predatory practices. most of the concessions have been in response to legal threats.
Blizzard was a good company when they released StarCraft, so I purchased StarCraft. Blizzard is a shit company now so I do not purchase or play their games now.
If Steam becomes a shit company in the future I'll stop using it. I don't understand the argument of "you should purchase for a shitty company now instead of a good one, because if you purchase from the good one it might one day become a shitty one.
except you didn't buy all your games from blizzard. we're talking about having your entire library depend on one company.
If Steam blocks my access to my legally purchased games or I refuse to run the Steam launcher there is no moral or ethical issue with me pirating my library.
Are you also glad when one grocery store has apples but no pears and the other one has pears but no apples?
Federated marketplace protocol really should happen at some point.
Like, it seems like a very clear solution to an online monopoly risk. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
Main problem I see is payments
Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service. In that fashion it'd be no different than how stores host their own websites you can order from. In my mind, the federated protocol would simply be a means for a person to browse stores similar to how one can navigate a mall or market.
For games, the further benefit after would be that via a client of the protocol, you could then download your games from the various stores in a singular library page.
Yeah but that would mean each server has to take custody of funds, have their own individual contractual agreements with game companies, handle refunds, bear all the legal and tax burdens of this, and get people to trust they won't scam them. It's just too much of a burden, these are all things that benefit heavily from centralization and economies of scale, due to the legalistic nature of payments. You would end up with one dominant instance and unused federation, if there was even anyone willing to deal with all that stuff to begin with.
I feel like you could solve this stuff pretty well with crypto, having payment go directly to the game devs, and a no refund policy or something to simplify things, but crypto is too hated so that wouldn't work right now.
It also sounds like a cheater's paradise.
What do you mean by 'cheater'? Like 'scammer'?
Like people who would otherwise get banned from a platform for cheating in games. Tracking that down is so much more complicated/impossible with federation. In other words it makes ban evasion super easy. See also: email spam.
Surely we've learned by now that decentralization and markets don't mix well
I'm not following.
Markets were originally decentralized, and while that has its problems, a decentralized market is miles better than a monopolized market.
Like, are you thinking of Etsy or Amazon or something? Because those are all run by a single point-of-sales and logistics collectives.
What we're talking about is basically building a means for getting all the websites around the web of small shops and such (or in this case all the various game store fronts like steam, itch.io, GOG, and EPIC GAMES) and giving you client which allows you to browse and order from them simultaneously. All that store'd have to do is add the protocol to their server and add themselves to a list.
Oh I thought you meant decentralized currency. What you're describing is just standardized storefront apis though, the vendors don't need to talk to each other (federate) for it. unless i'm missing something
But steam isn't trying to be monopoly. They don't pay developers to only sell on their platform. Games that are only on steam are only on steam because steam is the only place that developer wants to sell the game.
Look at all those downvotes from people who took offense to this comment, and WANT Steam to have a monopoly.
Yes, corporations bad. But don't forget: Steam is a corporation, too.
I do, and then they get nationalized, as all natural monopolies should.
I ignore epic totally
Just wait till it's on GOG or Steam, no game is worth the hassle of Epic Games store.
Steam: If a game is not in our records
GOG: Or ours
Both: Then it doesn't exist
Yar, me as well.
For me, its like it didn't have a release at all. There are allot more game I want to play of years ago. No fomo.
Pretty sure this is a screenshot of the upcoming game Infinity Nikki and OP must have checked before they added the windows launcher for preload.
EGS buyers can beta test it for me, that's fine.
I just wait until the exclusivity expires and then wait for it to go on deep discount because at that point I've moved on.
I wish Valve would get off their ass and make games again so they'd have a proper engine to rival UE5.
Half of Epic's gamestore wouldn't exist if this was the 2000s when people were flocking to the source engine because it was free and heavily modded
They have a rival it's called source 2. That's what CS, Dota and hl:Alyx used.
I mean, they have Source 2, but to call it a rival before it's even made it to third-party developers (Facepunch is effectively second party) is a bit of a stretch.
Sure, but pretty much nobody but Valve is using Source 2 for anything, though.
Yeah because it's still in development and not yet available. S&box is one of the "games" already using it in the background. When it releases to the public, it'll be just as popular as Source was - especially with the pricing strategy of "the only thing you need to pay for it is the steam fee" which is what, $100 per game?
A $100 deposit you get back if you actually sell your game and make money off of it. Technically not even a fee.
Is it? I last read about their pricing when greenlight was a thing and they said it's for the shop / adverts / all the cool things you get for support of the game. Didn't know they gave back the $100
I have a friend that uses epic games. I met him on steam. I've never played an epic game even though he keeps telling me about free games or whatever on epic games.
I refuse to use epic, didn't even have an account
We have a ton of the free games. They give away a bunch to get you to use them.
Never paid for one from them, though.
If your enemy is going to help you beat them, let them.
So, Epic is your enemy and Valve is your friend?
Generally, no.
Valve just isn't my enemy.
Just circle back in a year and buy at a discount on steam XD.
I don't like it when something is only available on Epic either. I also don't like it when someone is only available on Steam - which happens far more often.
I don't mind. Fewer choices. It's only on Epic? It doesn't exist.
I've never had any issues with pirating said games myself
There's always one more option. In fact, this is the only instance I find myself using that other option now-a-days.
Think of it as a "this game is not yet available for purchase" seal. It may also mean "we know our game is not up to standards (it wouldn't sell well on Steam), so we chose to let idiots at epic decide if they want to pay for it, and hey it worked so that's something".
I haven't created an epic account even for the free games I don't care how many awesome games they give out for free. Fuck Epic
what is the problem with epic? I like the weekly free games
So I own some games on epic store cause they were free and I said fuck it I’ll sign up for free games.
Haven’t installed the epic games store yet, and it’s been years. The benefits don’t outweigh the drawbacks, clearly.
Available on both Apple and Google stores? That's a near instant pass to me, too.
Wait a year for the exclusivity clause to expire and it to appear on other stores.
Do you also get this upset when a game only appears on Steam?
I specifically don't get upset when a game is exclusively on Steam because of how much work Valve puts into Linux gaming, work that Epic directly and actively opposes.
Epic refuses to enable the Linux support for EAC on Fortnite despite being super easy, and specifically removed Linux support for Rocket League.
That's what I said.
Two games I anticipated came out on Steam only, so I asked the developers if they planned to sell on alternative platforms and they did, but considering the game isn't full done yet (they released it in Early Access) Initially I was annoyed, but after their response (they want to focus their effort on the game before adding the extra burden of managing multiple update channels) I understand why they did, on top of being a small team.
I decided to wait for one (came out on GOG on v1.0) and for the second one I decided to buy it on Steam right away since there's still a lot of work left.
Do epic and gog even have early access avenues?
Gog does. The game manor lords is in early access on gog.
https://www.gog.com/en/game/manor_lords
Neat
Good question 🤔
GoG does, dunno about Epic.
Yes, we should reward decisions we dislike. That'll show 'em.
Isn’t this whole post just a part of a long running gag where people give shit to Epic for their exclusivity deals after they gave Apple so much shit for their walled garden in much the same way?
The apple walled garden is still really bad for users
Oh no, we don't complain about Steam exclusivity, monopolies are ok as long as they're the monopolies that we want, ok? What happens when Valve turns to shit and we made sure there's no viable alternative? That will never happen! Are you kidding?
When it turns to shit, we have the high seas.
Everything goes to shit eventually, but pre-emptively making yourself suffer is just silly. Enjoy the time you have, and vote with your wallet once they start doing anticompetitive crap like paid exclusivity deals. Until then, we might as well enjoy the fact that Valve isn't a public company obligated to chase short term profits for shareholders.
"make yourself suffer"
I open Steam, switch to the library open my game and play
I open Epic, open my game from the main screen and play
So much suffering! Heck, I also sent more money to the devs through that suffering!
If you think taking a 30% cut to enrich a billionaire isn't enshitifaction then I don't know what to tell you buddy.
"Making yourself suffer" by boycotting Steam.
It goes against every fiber of my being to not utterly despise a multi-billion dollar corporation, but I just don't have the energy that I used to. I have to pick the battles I want to fight, and they haven't done enough to make it worth it for me to do that.
Never said I boycott Steam, I said I don't boycott any of them
Most of the 30% cut goes to developing the store, software, and even hardware. Valve has worked to make gaming on Linux way more feasible and easy, popularized handheld PC's, made game streaming simple, etc.
Meanwhile EGS took 2 whole years to add a shopping cart to their online store and had multiple data breaches. That is what I call enshitification
No need to defend the guy who owns a yacht collection buddy, I'm sure he does perfectly fine without you
What about Windows Store 😏
Yeah, and it’s a nightmare to use with Steam link. The last epic exclusive I bought was The Expanse, but adding it as a non-Steam game to play with the link app completely screwed up the license check and locked you out of everything but the first episode.
Never again.
It is also available on the pirate bay.
TPB is a honeypot now.
And unless you're an idiot, it's pretty nigh impossible to get caught in that honey trap.
Valve kills physical ownership of games: I sleep
Games exclusive to Origin: I sleep
Games exclusive to whatever the fuck Blizzard made: I sleep
Games exclusive to Microsoft Store: I sleep
Games exclusive to Epic: REAL SHIT
I just wait, not like I don't have a ton of games to play with. Plus I get to buy it for cheap later on.
I'm happy that they're talking about moving the Unreal Engine off the platform.
If the list on PCGamingWiki is up to date, there aren't many Epic exclusives anymore (only 26 currently): https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_exclusive_to_Epic_Games_Store
And, earlier this year, Tim Sweeney said that many of exclusivity deals weren't a good investment while the free games have been "magical."
So, it seems like a problem that is solving itself over time. Epic will probably still have exclusives going forward, but I would expect them to target a few high-value exclusives like they got with Alan Wake 2. Or, maybe they will just do more acquisitions of games to self-publish, like they did with Rocket League and Fall Guys.
I just never buy those games. Epic released with exclusives but couldn't process payments in a number of country leaving gamers there SOL. That and some of the higher-ups there just left a really bad taste in my mouth. Anything that also releases as a timed exclusive there doesn't get a purchase from me until years later when it's more than half off (and I think I've only bought one game like that). A Steam monopoly is bad, but Epic are not the solution to that.
Seconded. I'd prefer to see GOG and Itch.io as the big competitors to Steam
Man, i kinda hate the epic games launcher, it is really crap; but for me games being on epic is not problem, i just use heroic instead, it's MUCH faster than epic's slop; what i don't like is games that for some reason just refuse to work on heroic despite EOS being installed
If there's an epic games game you want but don't want to use the epic launcher or you're on Linux, Heroic Games launcher id a good choice
Honestly we should probably have more places to buy games not just steam. Because remember when gabe newell dies there's no guarantee that steam will still be "good" they are still a corporation. So if epic needs exclusives to keep going we should support that. Competition between corporations is a good thing.
Give it a year, Epic Games Stores exclusivity always runs out eventually.
For there to be competition, there have to be some features. Epic just uses exclusivity deals as an alternative to features.
I am not sure what that is, but there is no competition.
I believe that's called "Pay to Win" in gamer culture.
Snort! I hate that you are right ;)
I get it being annoying... But why is it such a deal breaker? If the game is good, why not just install it, play the game, leave it when you're done?
The other storefronts have some cool features (namely gamepass for xbox and all of steamworks and the app stuff for steam), but it doesn't really matter if the game doesn't use em.
Speaking for myself, if it's Epic only, it means I have no assurances as a customer that they're going to keep letting me play the game on Linux. If I bought Alan Wake II, I'm doing so knowing that they don't support my operating system and could break compatibility with Wine with any random update. If that happens on Steam, I can reasonably expect a refund if it was previously Verified, and because of the verification system, they also have an incentive not to break compatibility. So if I play Alan Wake II some day, it'll be because it was a free giveaway on Epic, because I'm not paying for that.
Yeah, that's true on Steam as well.
There are a whole bunch of games that actively removed compatibility with SteamOS, and Linux by extension. Apex Legends was the most recent and the most vocal about it.
That was on the developers, not the storefront, though. Epic has specifically decided they don't give a flying fuck about Linux.
Well, you still don't get to play it, and you sure as hell aren't getting a refund, so I'm not entirely sure how that changes the situation at all.
... because now your weird obsession with blaming Steam for all things going wrong with gaming has less ground to stand on?
Because not having a game available is not having a game available. You still, and I can't believe I have to type this twice, don't get to play the stupid game.
For the record, I blamed Steam for nothing here. Some guy said he feels more assured that Steam will keep Linux compatibility, I pointed out that this is not the case. It's not even Steam's fault, compatibility is being dropped either for technical reasons or due to anticheat, and there is no indication that it will be any different with Epic going forward.
What they said, exactly:
Emphasis mine.
They didn't say it won't happen. They said they have far more confidence that it'll be much less likely to happen. And that they have a reasonable expectation of refund if the developer pulls that.
There are no guarantees here, but Valve has put a lot of time and effort into making Linux games work, and Epic has not. No, they can't stop developers from pulling those stunts, but they're no more happy about it than we are and, from everything I've been seeing, are actively working on getting developers to stop doing that.
Also, the anticheat excuse is mostly a lie, the ones Destiny 2, Rust, and Apex Legends use are compatible with Linux, and just require, as I understand it, checking a box and including a file in a specific spot, so those are just outright anti Linux for the sake of hating Linux and Linux gamers.
No, you see it's different because Steam is love and Gabe is perfection, you know?
The level of quasi-religious fervor is... kind of scary. Especially given that it's over this one billionare techbro. I mean, good for them, they have a great product and a better understanding of how to make money with only light enshittification, but still...
If and when they do something shitty, I'll be right there with you calling them out for it, but I don't see anything here that fits that description
Now this is a good reason.
And random note, but I didn't get a notification for this reply?
Sorry I forgot to send it, won't happen again, boss.
What do you mean, are you on some client that has notifications disabled by default?
Genuine fediverse noob here.
The guy you're replying to was joking, saying they are in charge of your notifications.
Lemmy notifications depend on the client you're using. I'm using Sync which is far from perfect with push notifs, usually they only pop up when I open the app.
I am just using the browser UI, and just mean the notifications on the site.
Sometimes I get a reply with no notification even within Lemmy, and someone else said this happens to them too.
I think sometimes they're just slow, so you may have clicked into the thread before it found out you needed a notification. I'm not an expert though. It's just a guess based on personal experience.
I just save my money and play something else or buy something else. There's more games than can be played that I've never felt like I was losing out by not buying a game from epic.
Right but I dont see how its anything but a minor annoyance.
Like, if the game is really good... What is so bad about installing the epic client?
Some perspective from someone vocally against Epic:
They entered the market and tried to get their foot in the door not by providing a better service or experience to the consumers, but by being underhanded and anticompetitive while accusing their competition of being underhanded and anticompetitive. Add on that with the fact that their CEO lacks any sort of humility and integrity, and I simply do not trust them to give a single shit about me as a customer. If they achieved their goals, I'm confident that they would leverage their position to extract value out of me immediately—be it through ads, increased prices, or selling my data to third parties. I don't want to support that by giving them any of money.
While I don't think Valve is my friend either, they at least:
Have a history of doing things that provide some benefit to their users, even if its clearly out of self-interest.
Aren't publicly traded.
Epic Games is not publicly traded.
And TBH their history with Unreal is not that bad. And Valve is already extracting a truckload of money out of us through their percentage cut.
Carmack is absolutely a character though, lol. I have to wonder how controversial EGS would be without him.
Fair point with neither being publicly traded. I should have been more clear on that.
Unreal the engine, or the game series? From the perspective of a consumer, I don't think either of them seem to be in good shape these days, unfortunately.
Er... Carmarck is in Id. Epic's founder and CEO is Tim Sweeney.
Ah yeah I meant Sweeny.
I don't have it installed. I claim through the website.
Some people prefer not to do business with entities whose business practices they don't support.
I tried GTA5 when I made an account there. The game was given free. Didn't play for long though, and I dislike the idea of having more than Steam. (I have GOG for Sims but I don't use that either)
I tried Rocket League at work. It is fun and I'd like to continue at home...but opening up that Epic Store kinda is a turn-off for the deal.
Check gog.com for it
Anything but not play those certain games?
Just don't use "Epic" man.
I use both Epic and Steam. That’s it. I understand your sentiment though.
I'm sure World of Goo 2 will come to Steam someday. I can wait.
Fewer companies are falling for the Epic swindle, which is why Epic is now full on publishing games now.
Which game?
I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, but aren't there some games that should have thrived but we're heals back by launching as Epic exclusives?
I guess, Epic Games sales cuts seems attractive for multiplatform games with microtransaction made with Unreal Engine...
Gee maybe you should sue epic and make them carry other stores apps and not lock in their payment system and allow downloading steam from their store for giga karma.
I hate when companies inconvenience me while trying to disrupt a near-monopoly by my benign benefactors.
Other than Fortnite, what game is only available on Epic?
Edit: Thanks for the responses!!
Exclusivity is stupid for everything but sex partners.
That's Honkai Star Rail right?
I'm so salty I STILL won't buy Satisfactory.
I know playstation has been pushing more to PC but like isn't a game only for epic pretty much the same as a Playstation exclusive? Sure it's annoying but brands have always had exclusives
They're basically announcing "We're a business, but we're not all that interested in making money."
I know this is unpopular, but I don’t understand why people care so much about which storefront they use to buy a game. I buy it where it is cheapest.
Hell, Epic takes less of a share of the sale. It is better for devs.
For me, the social aspect of the store I buy games from is irrelevant.
One reason is Valve has put a fuckton of effort into linux support. So for linux users, buying a game on Steam means it's probably going to work right out of the box. Buying from Epic, it's a crapshoot.
For example, I spent hours trying to get Red Dead Redemption 2 that I had bought from Epic to work. Never did, something with rockstar launcher compatibility. Gave up and bought it again on Steam, worked the first time I hit play.
88% of 1.000 vs 70 of 1.000.000? Which one is better?
People don't like what they did with exclusives. I'm kinda okay-ish if you keep the game you founded locked on your store for a year or 2 but not all the games you get by paying devs to release it exclusive to some shitty launcher
Epic games launcher is no where best as bad as anyone says. The storefront is also one of most responsive ones, especially compared to the likes of GOG.
For me, I just buy a game wherever it's cheapest. Like I got satisfactory on epic because I could get it like £15 cheaper than steam.
Like I don't understand why people are so irked by a steam alternative. It's not like it requires new hardware to play it's exclusives like with consoles. Aren't we all supposed to be against monopolies, steam needs competition, look at how shit its sales have been for like 10 years now compared to what they were like prior.
Both are horrible mess, I don't really understand this deepthroating of steam their ui is horrible, they do behave like a monopoly, games by them have drm by default. Same can be said about epic.
Epic supports third party launchers
I think Steam is the only platform I avoid that works on Linux
Steam le good, Epic le bad. Amirite? Updoots pls.
I mean I guess that means you don't like the game that much if your priorities are to skip it because of the store.
You wouldn't complain if it was only available on Steam so fuck off
Steam doesn't engage in the same kind of strong-arming and anti-consumer practices, so it's not exactly comparable, is it?
The fact that they take a 30% cut and it's used to enrich a billionaire is very much anti consumer.
I'm pretty annoyed when a game isn't on GoG.
Where are all the memes about Steam exclusives then?
Not my problem.
Oh we'd find something to complain about.