Epic reduce their cut to 0% for the first $1 million in revenue for devs on the Epic Games Store
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/05/epic-reduce-their-cut-to-0-for-the-first-1-million-in-revenue-for-devs-on-the-epic-games-store/Open linkView original on sh.itjust.works596
Comments194
Steam really needs something like this. Even the first 100k would be a great start for boosting indie devs.
Instead they do the opposite and reward the big players.
I think ideally the first xk should have somethong like 10% since there's still payment processing fees and such. After that have 30% then go down on huge amount of sales (to keep the big boys happy and on steam)
Why do you want to keep "the big boys" happy?
I mean, if you're Gabe then I get it. If you have a spare yacht call me, let's talk.
But if you're not, then... what's the reasoning there?
Not me, but i do want steam to stay the main game platform, if the alternative is epic games. That means you want to keep big studios on the platform.
On the other hand the vast majority of the money that valve makes comes from indie games, not big studios.
This is definitely not the case. Big studios price their games higher and sell more copies. There are only a handful of indie games like Stardew Valley and Terraria that come close to being in the same spot of the bell curve. Most of Valve's money comes from microtransactions in the longest-running live services and the biggest games of the year.
Ah yeah my bad its the number of sales where indie games win. In terms of money its almost 50/50 tho. People are sick and tired of expensive garbage games and that shows in the drastic changes in revenue from 2023-2024.
Ofcourse if you include in game costs, then it probably changes again.
Be careful not to make the data fit your conclusion. Anecdotally, I've observed a similar sentiment, but for one thing, AAA releases have slowed down due to long development times, so there just aren't that many of them in a given year. For another, we know that, by a wide margin, most time spent gaming is only on a handful of mainstay games that first debuted years ago, like Counter-Strike 2, Grand Theft Auto V, Fortnite, Minecraft, etc. Plenty of those aren't on Steam, but the same concept applies to the games that top the Steam charts.
My go-to is GoG, but I definitely want Steam to lose some market share in favor of literally anybody else. I will worry about moving that extra share towards GoG when the market isn't a full on monopoly.
But hey, yeah, stop using Steam and go to Gog whenever you can. You heard it here first. DRM-free software should be your first choice.
Naw, each time I buy on gog over steam I end up regretting it for some reason, usually related to modding or portability.
Gogs great, but has limitations. With steam everything works better.
Until it doesnt and your entire game library is done...
For generic SteamWorks integration, there already exists a open source DLL called Goldberg Emulator. If publishers opt for real DRM, the games are not available on GOG anyway.
Also, downloading and backing up the games have to be done by yourself before the storefront goes bust. Distributing GOG games outside of GOG is a copyright violation, unless the copyright holders explicitly allow it.
So, to sum up: You can backup DRM-free Steam games and make them work with little effort.
GOG and Itch are both great services. Epic is run by a psychopath and working hard to create the walled garden they themselves have been railing against. That's why EGS can go to hell but I'll gladly buy from the others.
I do not know or care about the personality or intentions of any of the executives in these corporations. Pick your variety of libertarian tech billionaire, I don't intend to root for any of them.
This is a Godzilla "let them fight" moment where in my ideal scenario none of these people would have this amount of money or control over other people's work, but since that's the world we live in, them being in competition benefits me down the line, so I don't want any one of them to get away with the whole thing.
Reminder that the world's biggest money makers in PC gaming are not on Steam.
Minecraft isn't (it's on Microsoft Store and a stand-alone web store), Fortnite isn't (it's EGS exclusive), Roblox isn't (its own store), League of Legends and Valorant aren't (Riot Launcher and EGS),...
Yeah.
And that's a fantastic showcase of the bar you need to hit to not be effectively toiling in the Steam mines. Assassin's Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam.
It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC. And none of those is even close to having a viable platform for third party releases outside of Epic, which is perhaps the last one standing on that front and currently not managing to get a foothold. And judging by the rabid fanboy backlash anytime they try to do something nice to attract devs, not even finding a path towards one at any point in the future, either.
That's a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren't that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.
They don't have to. OK, maybe Microsoft has to because they are the actual monopolist and making the Activision Blizzard franchises available on storefronts other than Microsoft's own is to keep the watchdogs away.
Also, none of the franchises are exclusive to Steam, so Steam has no monopoly.
That sentence makes no sense. Fortnite is exclusive to EGS, therefore it cannot be "significantly bigger than the entire Epic store".
Steam has no policies that forbid offering games on other stores, Epic has policies that makes certain games timed exclusives to EGS.
What makes EGS unattractive compared to Steam is the simple fact that Epic chooses to most prominently display their own games on EGS. Valve does front page banners, fests, that window that opens with every Steam launch, etc. and goes out of their way to make everything from big launches as well as solo dev indie games discoverable.
Epic has it in their own hands to make EGS more than the Fortnite launcher. They could promote other EGS games inside Fortnite but they don't. They host concerts inside Fortnite but nothing to promote 3rd party EGS games, for examle.
USD 45 billion overall PC gaming revenue and all of Steam combined is 8.6bn. "And the cash flows to Valve"? Sure...
I want them to have some competition...
Yeah. I mean, same thing.
The point is you ideally want multiple players in the PC market competing with each other on features and approach that are all viable, sustainable and give users and developers a better deal as middlemen.
I don't want Steam to go away, it's an insanely good client and a great piece of software. But I don't want every game having to be on Steam no matter what and only doing GoG or Epic or Xbox if they are being given a deal or for ideological reasons.
Valve is the only one in PC gaming to push an alternative operating system to Windows.
EGS, GOG,... all enforce a Windows hegemony. GOG Galaxy isn't even available on Linux, despite the fact that it's built on cross platform frameworks that make porting easy. Proton by Valve is open source and GOG Galaxy would be free to integrate it.
Heroic Launcher is a community effort that shows that it would be possible without massive investments. Epic and GOG/CD Project just chose not to.
I like GoG but they don't support Linux, they don't take a smaller cut, and developers are free to submit their games to Steam without DRM.
If it free, there is an incentive to release quantity and not quality, it could become a spam problem. I am all for having a lower percentage though, but 0 could be a problem.
You think the current cut Steam is taking...
... is preventing shovelware spam?
Have you been on Steam this decade?
But hey, yeah, nobody is advocating a 0% cut for Valve. Epic is doing this because they need to attract developers and most of their money comes from Fortnite anyway, so it's something they can try.
But Valve has a looot of ground between 0 and 30% and a lot of ways to give back to the developers that built their empire. And I don't think starting by treating smaller devs as well as they treat major corporations would be a bad start at all.
Cause that would probably get abused for things like money laundering, since Steam is open for everyone who wants to sell a game unlike Epic’s store where you get vetted. You can just set up a shell corp that releases shitty shovelware and buy the game from yourself with steam cards you bought from the store with your dirty cash. And then you’d get all your money back ready to be taxed and laundered.
Couldn't you just like... sell those stolen gift cards on G2A, Kinguin and such instead? You wouldn't have the 100 euro posting game fee + needing to have it checked and such.
I’m not talking about stolen gift cards. The goal of money laundering is to move dirty cash from the criminal underworld into lawful society. Selling stolen gift cards on G2A doesn’t help with that. You want to create proof for the tax man that the money you earn comes from a legitimate source. If you sell stolen gift card you don’t have a paper trail for where you have sourced those cards. It’s suspicious. And selling cards on G2A you buy with your dirty cash from a legit store is still suspicious since you still have to proof if the money you used to buy those cards was earned legitimately.
If you buy gift cards with your dirty cash at a store and then pretend to be a customer by buying your own game you have created a money paper trail for the tax man since your earnings will come from Valve with receipts and all and you don’t have to proof where and how your “customers” have bought those gift cards. And then once that money is taxed that money is earned legitimately.
You could buy stolen gift cards from another criminal but good chance stores report to their supplier if a batch of cards is stolen and then it gets reported to Valve. And Valve knows which numbers those are. If they see a game getting bought with cards from the same stolen batches and have almost no other sales there is a chance the game gets flagged automatically by their systems and they probably report it to the authorities.
You have given money laundering via making terrible games a suspicious amount of thought.
I mean, one could argue that this is on Steam to manage, and that the way to manage it shouldn't be "we'll just keep 30%". It was Steam who spent an inordinate amount of effort and terrible half-assed attempts automating game curation so they could have fewer people looking at approving games the way other first parties do. If Valve wants to Uberify game distribution they have an onus on moderation and on protecting the developers using their platform.
But that's irrelevant because nobody needs them to lower their cut to 0%. 20% would be great. 10% would be fantastic. Flipping the current order of things to give more money back to smaller games and keep more money from bigger games would be more than good enough. Whatever arbitrary bar you think would stop this entirely imaginary scheme they could meet and it'd still be an improvement.
Hell, I have never laundered money, but from what I hear out there 30% may not be enough to put a stop to that. That may be a decent return for some squeaky clean money out of Unreal asset flips. Should Valve set their cut to 50%? You know, in the interest of international security?
That was a serious reach, friend.
It's not that strange a thing to think about. Steam partners have abused the system before creating a fuckton of games just for achievements, trading cards and emoticons. Also Banana
Which is entirely a result of Steam abandoning any human intervention on their curation system, first by trying to crowdsource it and when that didn't work just opening the floodgates and implementing the lightest possible moderation, social media-style.
So okay, do they want to avoid exploits? Go back to curating the library. That's how it used to work, it didn't need to be an automated, hands-free process.
But if you're going to let everybody upload to it then you are on the hook for the costs of moderation. It's not a valid excuse to charge more for the privilege of being slotted against shovelware. It's not a viable argument at all.
From the POV of steam, you want the big releases to happen on your platform and take your cut even if its a bit smaller. In the end people change platforms for the big releases. Its the main reason I haven't fully switched to GOG yet, it doesn't have the major releases I want (or gets them late like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2).
You can spread idealism, but I rather stay realistic.
Yeah, but I'm not in the POV of Steam.
I'm in my POV.
You can't simultaneously go "it is what it is" when Valve gives big games a better deal to secure their position and be mad that Epic gives games exclusivity deals. It just doesn't follow. Realistically.
Epic only does it because they know they're the underdog. If that were to one day become untrue they would never do anything like this again.
I mean, yeah.
You sorta figured out competition in marketplaces.
Hey, I'm a social democrat. I'm all for intervening in markets, but for commodity entertainment products competition works pretty well, as you just explained.
You are mistaking publishing for distribution.
Publishing is not distribution.
No, you absolutely are. Publishers will typically pay for retail manufacturing costs (so printing, boxing and shipping), but that's not the same as digital distribution. Digital distribution doesn't map to shipping game boxes, it maps to retail.
Which is why games on Steam have deals with publishers, NOT with Valve.
1
Sure, I'm just saying Epic is not any better than Valve in that regard. They're just in a different position.
I'm a littler guy than any game company, Epic treats me like shit. So I'm not going to use Epic.
They will continue doing it if they need to compete. Capitalism working as intended. Who would've thought
Sure, I'm just saying Epic is not any better than Valve in that regard. They're just in a different position. It wouldn't make financial sense for Steam to do something like that.
Of course. They're both just companies
Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. But if they drop their rates they get accused of being anticompetitive and monopolistic.
So if they do something similar like Epic, they'll go back to using their monopoly over the market to keep competitors down.
...those are not different sides? The only reason they can charge such absurd rates is because of their position in the marketplace.
What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn't increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition? They already have active legal cases against them for monopolizing.
It's not what Epic charges.
No one would care if they were a monopoly and also charged less than everyone else. Pretty much every monopoly discussion revolves almost entirely around their absurd commission rates.
No it doesn't. Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam to undercut their rates because they can annihilate them in volume? Steam may not answer back at epics first million $ rate cut because Steam kind of needs them as competition.
Nobody gives a shit what they want. Monopoly enforcement is about consumers.
It's about consumers by making sure there's competition.
20% is still way too fucking high for little more than just hosting the games.
The hosting part is like the smallest portion of what valve does.
I dont think the curve would look like this without valves efforts to push linux, so i am a bit forgiving when it comes to them wanting money to do random research and development. So far they have always been making cool stuff with that money.
They’re constantly making cool, free shit for gamers because valve at its core is a company of gamers - they happen to make a shit ton of money because their passion for gaming ended up delivering a superior product, but it’s that passion that keeps them at the top.
Look at remote play together and family sharing - neither of those concepts help valve sell more games… if anything, they reduce the number of games sold (ie, their entire profit model), but they’re great ideas that make sense… so they spent a bunch of the companies time and money developing them.
Epic will forever be garbage as long as it’s only goal is to dick with steam… and it will always fail because they’re treating steam like a greedy corporation when really, it’s just a bunch of passionate gamers building the toys they wish they had when they were kids.
You are joking, right? The customer support alone (at the level at which it stands, which is very high for Steam) is well worth the price, especially for big players.
Do they officially support Linux yet? No heroic doesn't count.
They do not, and never will.
"Bite my shiny metal ass, penguins!"
~ Epic CEO ^(paraphrased)^
Here's a different take, as a game dev:
Epic actual employs quite a few people who work with Linux. The Unreal engine (and even, to a certain degree, editor) has native support for Linux.
The reasons they're not including Linux support in their store front are two fold:
There aren't enough pure Linux users to matter, and whatever percentage of their userbase would use Linux isn't going to be large enough to make a dent^[1]^.
The only serious Linux user base in gaming relates to the Steam Deck, a product that pushes a rival (and the dominant) store front.
While Valve's move to push Linux gaming is brilliant for us gamers, it also kind of cements us in their camp.
There is absolutely no reason for Epic to support Linux in anyway, and it absolutely supports their bottom line to attack it.
And, no, it isn't because of any David v. Goliath tale of a little guy standing up to a brute: it's because a fellow giant has decided to ally itself with Linux, and all of us have - invariably - been shuffled into their camp.
I think the Epic Games Store has a place in this world as a niche storefront with limited visibility but higher access to sales profits as a result of that.
They'll never grow to the size of Steam, and that's okay. The largest storefront in the world supports Linux not just on its platform, but by developing tools for everyone that makes Linux gaming viable. That is enough, IMO.
[1] Edit: I was throwing around a made up 0.1% number earlier to indicate what I thought the number'd be - wasn't meant to be factual, and was poorly worded, so I removed that.Where are you getting 0.1%? According to Steam Hardware Survey Linux is over 2% of Steam Users. This puts Linux way ahead of Mac which supported by Epic
TBH what matter more is revenue. Apple users always pay more
Totally made up, meant it more as a "this is my ballpark estimation of what their Linux player base would be" - though I agree I worded it poorly. I don't know what % of Epic Games users would play on Linux if given the chance.
I'm editing my original message, sorry about that!
2 is only true because they refuse to support it, and it's going to be great to see them walk back everything they said once it's too late. More handhelds are going to launch with official steamOS support, and a new batch of steam machines will come eventually, with a much better support.
In the same way they tell how to side load an apk in android, they can could tell you how to install heroic on the deck.
Hell, through 10-20 K to heroic and they will make it for you simple.
And it was just a big coincidence that Epic removed Linux support exactly when the Steam Deck got announced...
Except for the fact that their entire technology stack already supports it and making Linux versions of their games is a compilation step away. Their Tencent buddies at One-Notebook would surely make a OneXPlayer with EpicOS. "Comes with Fortnite and get free games each week".
EGS has a massive installed base because of Fortnite.
It's not about how easy it is to compile, my first point in my original comment was that they actively maintain an engine for Linux.
The install base is too low right now. Hopefully as our numbers grow we'll have enough market impact to warrant pushing other store fronts.
Fortnite is great for Epic, but their debacle with Apple kind of proved that one popular game isn't enough to push the public off one store front onto another.
But it is. It is what defines the cost of supporting a platform.
The installed base of Switch2 is 0% right now.
But it's the year of... Oh no. Rly? :(
Unreal Engine has official Linux support since ages. Unreal Engine running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is what movie CGI creators often use these days. It's a highly lucrative market they're not going to give up.
Epic Online Services supports Linux as well: https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/epic-online-services/eos-get-started/platform-support (which includes Easy Anti Cheat)
So when Fortnite and Rocket League have no Linux versions, it's just because of lack of will, not anything technological.
And yet, still, they can go fuck themselves.
I have to give it to Valve, their marketing team is really good.
Do they even have one? I thought it's rare situation when the product speaks for itself.
I assume they mostly just do Steam sale and store organization stuff these days. Maybe they were involved with the SteamDeck but I mostly saw word of mouth for that.
Right?! Nobody ever talks about all the kids they got addicted to gambling. Bang up job, there.
Yeah, lmfao, one of my friends literally only wants to play cs2 because of the free weekly items... It seems that games with elements of gambling always do better than those without it
Cool, still fuck em though
The desperation looks good on you Epic
They’re so desperate to make their store front a thing 😂
I just deny the existence of any game that is an Epic Games exclusive title.
Screwed over is what they get
Games that need a third party app to run on Linux
They understand that devs are in steam because it's where users are. Do you think they are stupid? There is no much they can do to bring users if there are no games, they are 15-20 years behind Steam in years of existence.
So true. All they have to do is WAY FUCKING MORE THAN THEY ARE WILLING TO.
Fuck Epic
Yeah yeah, what about making the EGS program not suck for customers? An overglorified browser running on top of unreal engine, no user reviews for games...
The no user reviews is a terrible choice. I don't understand why they wouldn't have them. Maybe they're afraid of spam on Fortnite. But I can't imagine reviews on Fortnite would matter all that much.
Because they have to, because their store is based in bribing developers for artificial exclusivity in an attempt to hurt Valve for proving that Pig Swiney was a moron a decade ago when he said PC gaming was dead.
This is all a vain attempt by a man child to get back at Gabe, and it’s abso fucking lutely a hilarious delight what an abject failure it all is.
Garbage store with no customer services struggles and burns money, because that’s what’s lazy customer fucking cash grabs should do - burn. Fuck epic, fuck Swiney, and fuck you if you defend them.
Completely unrelated, but is your username a reference to the movie Can't Hardly Wait?
Unreal Engine could've got us, like, Unreal Tournament. It almost did, in fact, it a little.
Die in eternal fire Epic
That's pretty cool, actually. Sorely needed in the current economic climate. Good for them.
I wish their software and platform were a lot better to go along with this, but in isolation this is great.
How many layoffs does that take? /s
TBH I haven't seen evidence that layoffs generate capital. It just fudges cost to revenue ratios to emulate quarterly gains in hopes of appeasing shareholders.
Fortnite kids will sustain them. Gotta darken those patterns just a little...
100% of $0 is still $0.
I'll spend my money on platforms that have proven to respect their customers.
What's epics problem? I only log in to get free games but I think competition should work out better for the consumer
They could literally just copy steam, add their "we take less of a cut" thing, and be in a good place.
Instead, using their storefront sucks, their customer service sucks, they lack features you'd expect of a major platform, and they're pretentious dicks about it. Instead of fixing these obvious problems, they're bribing devs for exclusivity, pumping their marketing with bullshit, and litigating apple over their app store (actually that last one is kinda great). The epic store today would be competition to steam if steam was still as it was 20 years ago when everyone hated steam.
Competition is usually always a good thing, but sadly no launcher has ever brought anything new to the table that Steam hasn't already been doing (they usually just bring headaches).
Epic doesn't want to compete fairly (by providing a great user experience, etc). They want to compete by paying for exclusives & bribing users with free games. Obviously this hasn't worked because they are loweri g fees, likely to try to get the growth they just aren't seeing.
For the consumer multiple platforms sucks. There's already competition for selling steam keys as well. Epic doesn't want to pay other platforms for anything fortnite, anything else they do is to justify why they shouldn't have to pay like every one else.
They don't got a problem. Someone on reddit a while ago pushed for epic=bad so now years later people just parrot the same shit over and over like monkeys.
These people in their minds are "friends" with steam. They gotta stick up for their buddies on the internet.
I don't think "epic bad". But right now, I don't see why I should use their platform when all my stuff is on steam. They should bring either: better experience or better value. Right now they don't really do either. Sure they give you free games but I have 10x the amount on my platform of choice. I'm not married to steam I just want epic to give me a reason to use them.
Cool
Epic Games store and Tim Sweeney are both still peices of shit.
I can't wait to get more games on my Epic deck, oh wait it was Valve who pioneered an incredible platform that can play AAA games on a handheld running Linux and made compatibility a reality for thousands of games.
They didn't pioneer it, companies like GPD did. Not shitting in the Steam Deck, love that thing. Just wanting to get the facts straight.
I think it still counts, due to all the work they did on the software side.
Good for them, but until EGS starts being more pro- consumer, I'm not spending a cent there
This is great and it's not like they have shit revenue splits anyway as last I checked it was 88/12 which is by far the best around.
I'm interested in why you think they are toxic to the gamer base?
Is this an apology for the bad performance issues of UE5?
I've not used Epic games store much at all but I could see this leading to a proliferation of garbage on their service if they take the Steam approach of just letting anyone publish on there. This would essentially be an incentive to publish asset flip shovelware on Epic instead of Steam because "devs" get a bigger cut.
They actually take the time to approve the games coming to their store, unlike Valve...
So what does Steam's revenue share look like in comparison?
Steam takes 30% at first, and there is a discount after tens of millions of dollars in sales.
Steam offers a ton of benefits for game companies through steam, such as the Friends list, reviews, having a way to show live play from the store page, and a bunch of other things. There is a reason that everyone is flocking to steam, and that 30% cut isn't keeping anyone away.
Plus steam input, remote play, play together, trophies, hell there's a whole API for you to use to make your game multiplayer and have it integrate with steam friends easily. So much built in for devs lives to be easier.
Just check out steam works. There's so much for developers
https://partner.steamgames.com/
User base and brand loyalty
Nothing about what Valve does but you can’t afford to not be on Steam even though it’s the inferior product
That’s why EOS works with any platform
Steam is, in my opinion, way better for the user (even if it may be worse for the developer).
Epic lacks features that are important to me like reviews, the ability to view your library in a browser, warnings about DRM, Linux support, a hole bunch of features to discover games, a workshop, big picture mode.
Additionally, in my experience at least, their official launcher under Windows is a buggy mess compared to steam.
And the thing is... Because Steam is better for the user, it becomes better from the developer. 70% of your game's Steam revenue will always be bigger than 100% of your Epic revenue. It's probably bigger than 300% of your Epic revenue. That's why Steam doesn't need to buy exclusives or run loss leaders or try to lock you in with "free!" promos. Epic needs to pay developers up front to get them to not go to Steam, because in every case a dual Steam/whatever-else release is better than a whatever-else release. So Epic needs to pay the indie game studio that made a $10 game a million dollars for timed exclusivity, which allows the studio to not worry about losing their Steam revenue from selling 130,000 copies. Then they release it on Steam later anyway.
If it was as simple as "cutting out middlemen" or using cheaper middlemen, devs would just be selling you exe files. CDN costs wouldn't come close to 30% of revenue, after all. People like buying games on Steam. People buy games on Steam that are cheaper and DRM-free on GOG or Itch. People buy games on Steam that are free downloads like Dwarf Fortress. People buy games on Steam that are free browser pages like Cookie Clicker. Epic wants people to be invested in their "free!" libraries enough to actually be like "oh I mean I've got the Epic account, may as well buy this game here because it's cheaper or more of my money goes to the devs or because it's a timed exclusive..." And people simply aren't doing it.
EGS has reviews as far as I can tell. I still think Steam is better, but this is a welcome move out of them. Competition is a good thing
Edit: downvoted for pointing out that EGS has reviews. Y’all are weird lol
The way Epics reviews work are awful, though. They are trying to be really attractive to developers but they aren’t attractive enough to USERS.
For example, you have to be INVITED to review games on Epic. The system is automated and will occasionally ask for a review after you close a game, assuming you’ve been playing long enough. They claim it’s to avoid things like “review bombing”, but that’s a cop-out to shield bad developers/publishers from the repercussions of their actions (like when Denuvo was non-consensually added to Ghostwire Tokyo a year after release).
Implying review bombing is always warranted is as misguided as it gets. Games regularly get review bombed for something as trivial as having a non-white person for a protagonist.
I don’t disagree that’s a problem, but that is not what I said or implied. That’s the reason Steam has other mechanisms for scoring and scaling reviews. There are plenty of valid reasons for “review bombing” that are organic and natural consequences of developer activity: like adding Denuvo a year after release, adding a launxher or login/account requirement after the fact, etc. Making reviews “invite only” is anti-consumer.
I was talking about written reviews, not just a like/dislike (star) system
At least Valve takes some of the money that they make from Steam and use it for Steam. You cant run an entire gaming platform based on developers alone, you also need to make it at least somewhat bearable for consumers.
I am against monopolistic competition practices and that includes exclusivity deals and predatory pricing.
And as far as I know, Epic does this more than Valve or GOG. Granted, Valve doesn't need to, because they are already the main player, but they also mostly avoided enshittyfication for now.
Granted it is hard to enter a market that is already dominated by another company, but instead of doing those business practices they could offer a better service.
Yes. That is rather high, but AFAIK the same on Xbox, PlayStation and GOG. Itch.io is on 10%.
What do you mean by that? Enshittyfication is when companies try to offer a good platform first to reach many content producers and consumers and then, once the consumers and producers depend on the platform, it goes bad for them in order to favor profits of the company owners or stakeholders.
Just because a company is private, it can still change to favor short term money extractions from all their customers.
I don't really understand what it is I would be wrong about. Is it about the word "shareholders" in the wiki instead of "owners", what I called them?
Shareholders of a private company is often a small group of individuals or just one person, and they can also be called the owners. "Private" means the shares are not traded publicly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder
Steam is a monopoly because it is the only one of these platforms to actually be good.
Epic can even beat them if they just improved their store, but they would rather fight other stores so that it would be worse for everyone.
It's more than the store they need to improve.
They're not just playing catch-up either.
no, it's because they had about a 15 year head start. you think steam started the way it is now? it started as a launcher for steam games and it was worse than ubisoft's launcher.
Also, folks fucking hated it at the jump. Whats wild to me is that Epic could factor in all the lessons Steam learned over near two decades resulting in a relatively equal product, but instead... doesn't.
eh it's currently second only to steam imo. and don't come at me with gog galaxy, it's absolutely awful, and feels like it's also abandoned.
GOG doesn't need a launcher, because the games don't have DRM. It is just nice to have, in order to keep games up to date.
Steam, Epic, Origin and the Microsoft thing needs a launcher, because DRM. The non-optional part is what is annoying, it is not a choice, if you buy something there, you have to use their launcher software, that needs to run in the background all the time (Sure it doesn't need to run all the time, but just having to start it in addition to the game, is annoying).
With Steam being the first one to require a launcher, it was annoying at first, but became useful and people started considering it the standard game delivery solution. Now we need another one for Epic and all other stores that peddle DRMified games.
If Epic would be just another store, where you buy and download games, nobody would complain, but Epic created (reinvented) an additional incompatible game delivery solution that required their launcher, that is what people are mostly annoyed about.
If the industry would come together and create a vendor neutral and compatible software and game delivery mechanism, where people are free to choose where to buy their software and games, and with which launcher they want to keep it up to date, that would be awesome, but sadly capitalism favors short sighted, wasteful and monopoly building competition instead of cooperation.
You can't tell me that if epic somehow wins this war that they won't immediately enshittify the platform. Valve has my trust.
epic can have a seat at the table when they actually start competing with valve in terms of features and customer service.
I guess I don't understand Epic's model. How is Epic different from Steam in this regard?
Steam fans are a cult lol. Invested too much money they hate to admit so now they sing it's praises till they die.
Can I like and dislike a comment at the same time?
Am just gonna like yours to show my split opinion.
If Steam turns to shit I have no problems reacquiring my collection through Piracy. There is no sunk-cost here. Epic is actively anti-consumer so I refuse to use it.
How are they affording this? It can't be a sustainable model, right?
Fortnite, and it's not. The store loses them hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
That's the kind of competition I want. Not a plucky newcomer with fresh ideas, but an industry titan able to burn more money than some companies ever see in an attempt to undercut the competition. They surely aren't factoring this as a deficit to recoup when they pull a massive reversal after securing market dominance. That's never happened in the history of capitalism.
Epic can huff my huffables.
Dont they also get royalties from Unreal Engine?
Here's the details on the financials
https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/exclusive-the-numbers-behind-epics
They'd been paying a fortune for other ways to get more titles which never panned out. Steam said fuck the little guys so they're trying to capitalize on that right now.
Easy. On EGS most games don't sell at all, so 0% of $0 is still $0. They get most of their money from Fortnite.
It s a good start ngl.
What about taking a different route altogether and not be greedy? what about charging a flat fee (your costs plus some profits to run the infrastructure like yearly or monthly). What about not being evil?
There is a huge business opportunity IMO to do just that. Have a store, charge a flat fee, add whatever percentage wire transfers take (1-3%). You make money, you out-compete everyone and you are the good guy.
That would require having a platform worth something. Currently, they sank millions into the community - but in the wrong way. The client still lacks basic features and yet they spend money to buy exclusivity.
Fuck them, they don't deserve shit - praise or money.
I agree with this. What would make people jump from an evil corporation abusing its users and creators to another evil corporation abusing its users and creators.
Like Steam is doing?
I don't think their cut is them being greedy.
Your plan might not be economically feasibile, because companies need money for growth (new products, R&D, etc), so only charging enough to run is not possible.
Steam is probably doing a kindness by not charging an infrastructure fee every year to developers, that shiz would probably really expensive.
The cost of the cloud features they provide is likely, usually, understated. Just the bandwidth costs alone of allowing your game to be downloaded whenever the user wants and however many times they want is expensive enough. Add on cloud saves and all the other niceties..
All that is just to say that Epic is likely losing a lot of money here just to try enticing more developers to move over, and maybe bring some customers too, but it's not gonna work. They are lucky the fortnite piggybank lets them do this, but it's not smart by any means.
This goes along with their 0% engine fees, only surprising thing is that this wasn’t always in place
Sounds like it's time to play through the free games I got before epic folds like a card table and revokes my access to them.
In a sane world, the library could host the people's digital store front with no cuts taken from the sales. Gaming is our culture, we should preserve it. We should collectively own it. We should be free to sell the games without a middleman taking a cut.
I don't have an issue with a platform taking a small cut, but the 30% steam takes is ridiculous.
As long as Fortnite prints money, Tim gets to cosplay as a consumer crusader.
I think both Steam and Epic will let you generate codes to sell your game yourself, but this will attract a shit load of fraudulent credit card sales, and it's pretty much not worth doing.
Oh hell yeah. This shit crazy good
Steam is good, but competitors can only make it even better. Worst case it doesn't change.
Steam wins again by doing nothing
No one cares.
I hate epic too but game devs do
fuck apple and their customers btw
Honestly, I completely forgot I had Epic installed on my PC
Oh yeah. I forgot I have an Epic account.
Can epic stop the virtue signaling?
A lot of Steam Stans here.
Here's some neat facts:
It sucks that EGS is looking to suck up games, customers, data, etc. Their App / Interface also kinda sucks. UE5 on the other hand kinda rules, and Steam has been quietly collecting cheques while their Source Engine has collected dust. Almost all my games are on Steam but the ones I want to keep I've been getting through GoG.
GoG I think has a solid business model of DRM free games and game preservation. EGS is leading in one of the industry's most innovative and developer-accessible game engines for the foreseeable future. Steam is going to have to make some tough decisions I think to compete as time goes on.
None of these are why people hate epic games or like gog/steam.
EG is toxicily anticonsumer. Their platform is assbackwards with no good functional community features. They bombard users with ads for games they already own. They spyware they call a store front has repeatedly been caught snooping through user files without consent and sending unknown amounts of data back to their server without permission to gather that data in the first place.
And the cherry on top is their close relationship with tencent, aka one facet of the propaganda arm of the CCP.
I see this a lot and... do they though? From what I can tell, Steam also operates in China. Sure, Tencent invested in EGS, but not in any kind of controlling stake. Tencent does invest in tech and EGS is probably a solid investment.
Operating in China and having 10% of your company publicly owned by an entity of the Chinese government are two different things, and EGS has reportedly been all to happy to give over any and all information they have on identified users to the CCP. One article in 2019 suggesting that Hong Kong activists were being targeted by data in part provided through such means.
I don't think it is. Steam operates in China and even allows China to censor the Steam store page and games as needed. Valve doesn't take much issue bending over for China either in that regard. EGS and Steam are both Corporations and China is a large market.
Neat facts, but they don't justify the awful game store they have created. They can't even handle a downloads queue that you can change around, which is embarrassing. They have 1% of the features that Steam provides, so rightly they can't charge the same.
Would be nice if Source 2 was available to anyone, but it isn't a product they want to sell/support. It's mostly meant to power their own games (like most game studios, they can have their own inhouse engines). Maybe as it gets more mature they could explore this possibility idk.
Very innacurate.
Valve create so much great software around gaming. Steam gets updated very frequently with bug fixes and new features (just recently we got game recording).
Source 2 is likely constantly being worked on (featured in 2 of the most popular pc games: CS2 and Dota2). Maybe randoms like us could never use it, but they still work on it unlike your statement would suggest.
Not to mention Proton, which helps every linux gamer run Windows games.
30% may sound steep, but it's not really when you consider what Steam provides: Game distribution (downloads, forever), community features, steam workshop/marketplace (if implemented), inventory system, game networking, in-game purchasing, achievements, etc, etc. I'm not a game developer, but theres probably a million more things they do. I'm not even mentioning the features they provide just for us, the gamers (mainly family share, thats simply amazing).
Very awesome, GOG and their goal of preserving video games is great.
My p.s. wrapup is that Epic is barely a launcher when compared with Steam. Yes Epic can launch a game, but it does nothing else (well) at all.
Even with all the years they have had for development, they'd rather try to shove money into game devs faces (or customers with free games) than fix their app. I hope they realise this is a mistake, because you can get game devs to move over with lots of money, but customers who are spending money won't if they arent treated well. This isn't a long term strategy they have been using and this 0% fee seems like desparation to me (not to say they are poor, cuz fortnite pays the bills, but they likely aren't seeing much growth).
I hate defending corporations, but Valve is the one that I hope every other company looks at and tries to mimic because they have only done good for their customers.
Yet Steam has a history that proves they will not fuck customers over, and if they try new features people hate they'll not pushing it through no matter what for the purpose of maximizing profits (also not through dark patterns). This is something phenomenally rare and which you can't buy with any amount of money.
So yeah, not sure what will happen in the future. But competing with Steam always will be just painful unless you got your own niche (like GOG) by the mere fact that Valve isn't "just another company that will screw you over" <-- the default expectation these days.
You do realize the market share of GOG is about 0.5%, right? That's despite Projekt Red being a beloved developer, the great launcher features, the fairest DRM practices, many years in the business, and so on. It only proves the point that Steam is a monopoly that cannot be disrupted whether you do it nicely like GOG or aggressively like Epic.
I don't think the GoG numbers matter, and I do think Steam's days are numbered if they continue on their current course (like, within the next 50 years, not tomorrow, but in my lifetime). GoGs DRM free and game archive mantra is going to give them longevity. The World continues to digitize, and eventually, society is going to have to grapple with Internet privacy and digital ownership. Steam on the otherhand is catering to the same crowd EGS is at a 30% tax. No doubt Steam has the numbers, no doubt they will for awhile, but I do think they will eventually run out of Steam if they don't invest in a more sustainable business model.
To be clear, I don't hate Steam or am in any way rooting against Steam, this is just my PoV in comparing their business model to EGS who has primarily invested in their UE5 engine. Valve on the otherthand does well with hardware, Steamdeck and SteamVR I think are both solid.
I also don't believe that EGS is as bad as a company as people make them out to be.
From what I've been hearing, their fee is flexible. 30% is uncommon on PC.
I'm not aware of any evidence of Valve's cut ever adapting to a dev's circumstances. It's 30% until they've made $10M, which drops it to 25%, and to 20% after $50M. I'd call that scalability available only to the most successful few, not flexibility.
I would argue UE5 enables and encourages bad development practices that lead to the unoptimized mess that "modern graphics" games are right now. Their work is cool, but so many games rely on temporal aliasing for in-game effects now, and UE5 is the common denominator.
Steam and GOG have a strong history and userbase. 0% commission is nice, but Steam in particular offers a world of more value than Epic Games Store, including but not limited to a usable fucking user interface (I use Rare to play my EGS library because it's so bad).
Steam games are DRM free unless you consider Steam itself a form of DRM. DRM is implemented by the developers of the game, not by the marketplace it's sold on.
And I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?
Steam is it's own DRM system. Control (2020) is a perfect example. You can't run that from your steamapps folder due to Steams DRM to verify a purchase license. GoG on the other hand has the same game, usually cheaper, an runs entirely independent of any platform. Not every Steam game is like this, but most major releases are.
The nice thing about a "Free" Engine is that anyone can pick it up. This means the more people pick it up, the more tutorials, the more docs, the most common issues are found, the more common solutions, etc. So while you believe that performance is an issue, it really is one of the better available engines out there and it can only get better. Again, Steam does not let other people use their Engine - what's the next best free thing - Unity?
Source 2 is closed source, however it's absolutely available to third parties. There are a couple non-Valve Source 2 games in development right now.
Could you point to these games or any documentation on how a developer may reach out to Valve regarding developing in the Source 2 Engine?
I was able to find sources for the Source engine, but not Source 2 which Valve has been primarily making games on in the last 10 years. In any case, neither are as widely supported or available as UE5.
Not one of those data points justifies their shitty client, which, as a consumer, is all I really care about.
Tim, what are you doing here?
Eh, I've mostly moved over to Godot for actual game making
This is for the store, not the engine.