Right, another monopolist trying to fill their garden. Epic is literally buying the companies behind long established games, removing game support for alternative OSes, and eventually only allowing access from "the epic store".
No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.
To be fair to Epic, they are/were offering developers a better deal than Steam. And they've done far more for gaming over the past decade than Valve, which hasn't been able to successfully innovate in the last two.
- games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take
- they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
- their store still doesn't have a shopping cart (i may not be current on this)... reeks of incompetence? Can you trust them with your credit card info?
- they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
- btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
- Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Do you really think that if the Epic Store somehow manages to "win", it will be better for us customers in any way?
It's sad that the only entity fighting Apple's monopoly is... another would be monopolist.
Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Windows only is fine. From a purely pragmatic point of view, other platforms are such a small fraction of the gaming market, it really doesn't make sense to support them. Companies have tried supporting OSX and Linux for years (decades?) now, but there just aren't enough players to justify it (much less than 5%).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Epic paying developers for exclusivity. There is fundamentally nothing different about that than Valve selling their own first-party game exclusively on their own store (Half-life, Portal, DOTA, etc).
If you don't know about Epic's contributions to gaming, then you're just out of touch. Fortnite is a huge deal, but there's also stuff like Gears of War, and of course Unreal Engine 4 itself.
I absolutely do think if Epic wins, it will be better both for consumers and game developers like myself. I don't think you understand the mindset of Tim Sweeney if you think he is super monopolist.
> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Hmm why isn't Epic the games developer suing Valve for that?
> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Epic's been dropping 2 free games a week on their store. Those are cheaper :)
I have ~24 games in my Epic games library from this and 6 work on Macs. Not exactly Windows only (but way way moreso than Steam)
WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam. I buy most of my stuff on Amazon without using a cart.
Exclusivity kinda sucks, although at least the PC/Mac platforms can support both Epic and Steam and GoG! Sucks even harder for PS or Xbox players.
WRT contribution to gaming, the Unreal Engine seems like a small contribution...
Lastly, Fortnite isn't to everyone's tastes but it is IMO a very fun and unique game with the build mechanic. Free-to-play implies pay-to-win and that's not the case. Virtual goods are cosmetic not stuff like levelling up faster
PS. I do prefer Steam and appreciate Valve's contributions
Your only meaningful point is the first one, that games aren't cheaper.
The rest are not related to price. A shopping cart, for example, is just a feature. And the Apple and Linux gaming markets are so small that its generally not worth developing for them unless compatibility comes free with your engine. The EGS store was intended primarily as a sales vehicle for Fortnite, with support for other games being grafted on over time...the same way that the Steam store got its start. Steam used to be an utter piece of shit too, and it took years for them to get to where they are today. (Note: Epic's Unreal Engine actually does support Apple and Linux, however the anti-cheat mechanisms in Fortnite wouldn't work on either platform, and given the almost-daily updates required it would require a fairly hefty user base on those platforms to justify support.)
By they way, Epic contributed Unreal Engine to the world. Only a few thousand games are made on it, including the world's current most popular game, Fortnite. Other notable games using the current version of Unreal Engine include Crash Bandicoot, the newest Batman game, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Gears of War 4 and 5, Hellblade, Kingdom Hearts, Minecraft Dungeons, NBA 2K, PUBG, Sea of Thieves, Star Wars JFO, System Shock remake, The Outer Worlds, and oddly enough Youshi's Crafted World.
UE3 was around long enough that all of the original Mass Effects used the engine. Other notable games on the UE3 engine include the Medal of Honor series, Mortal Kombat, Rocket League, XCOM, Tom Clancy games, Infinity Blade (one of the games credited with making iOS a gaming powerhouse), Gears of War 1-3, Devil May Cry, Borderlands 1 and 2, and the older Batman Arkham games.
>games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take
They are literally handing out free games, Total War: Troy, a brand new game, its free today
>they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
>they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
Seems to be a pretty simple calculus to me. Epic is willing to pay developers and publishers to have exclusive access to their games. Steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes 12%. I would take that deal in a heartbeat.
>btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
>Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon, they are very generous with providing access to their Unreal Engine software, even cutting the cost of using it until they the developers are actually generating revenue.
> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
The fact that there are only X% of gamers on Linux/Mac OS may be justification for you, but why would I go near a store that doesn't support my platform of choice? As I said, they're not offering ME a better deal.
> plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
When have you last bought a game on GoG then? They have quite a few new titles. Everything I backed on kickstarter lately came with a GoG key, for example. Except Phoenix Point - they took the Epic bribe so I won't get to play it.
> Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon.
I can't afford free to play games. Even if the IAPs are all cosmetic, you can't say the design wasn't affected by their presence. For example, by making cosmetic items unobtainable or very hard to obtain through normal game play. If i wanted to grind more I'd keep up my WoW subscription thank you.
Hint: all the money coming from Tencent were made via predatory free to play mobile games, mostly in the Asia region where it's even worse than in the west.
> WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam.
I don't buy games on launch, even if i'm in a hurry i wait for a couple reviews. Also I suppose I have more money than time so I buy my games in batches on sales, since I know I won't get to play 90% of them. Yes, I need a shopping cart.
Anyway, this is all nitpicking. The main thing is that by supporting their bribing you encourage them, and their pay to win attitude will be very very bad for you as a consumer if they manage to kill their competition.
First, you shouldn't take this so personal. Should I be calling Epic game store or Steam bad platforms if they don't support Windows 95? Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows.
I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?
Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
> Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy.
... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :)
> I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe.
No, the exclusives are paid money upfront on a certain amount of estimated sales, which they don't have to return no matter what the actual sales are. They're not going exclusive just for the lower commission.
The juicy bit: When doing the math, looking at Fig's stake (50%) and the 85% dividend rate (how much Fig gives to investors), this means that Epic Games will have had to have given Snapshot Games approximately $2,247,058 for the Phoenix Point exclusivity rights.
> Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
I'm sure the society would have been better without IAPs. Not all the marks something leaves are desirable.
I don't believe you are willing to discuss anything in good faith if you are unwilling to read or begin to understand what I wrote.
1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing,
2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy to look at the evidence. Publishers and developers do not owe you anything, and I would rather they take the extra cut and either pay their employees/shareholders, or develop better games.
30% is unconscionable, and I cannot wait until the App Store is forced to be spun off or forced to lower their margin, and Steam is being out competed by Epic.
> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
Before EGS rolled around, Linux momentum on getting games support was amazing. Steam lets you run the vast majority of games on Linux now.
> And they've done far more for gaming over the past decade than Valve, which hasn't been able to successfully innovate in the last two
Uhm, what?
Epic has delivered Unreal Engine 4 – good for them. They've also released a successful battle royale, piggybacking off of other developers' success and rolled out a crappy store/launcher, a straight downgrade from every single competitor, that they actively force on people by literally buying their portfolio. Nobody would ever install EGS if the monopolist didn't bully their way onto the market.
Meanwhile Valve has been pushing VR, extending Steam (with Proton, Remote Play etc) to the point where it's actually an added value over the games you buy on it, attempting (successfully or not, depending on who you ask) to revolutionize gaming controllers... what exactly did Epic do for gaming, other than release the next iteration of their already successful engine?
I mean we can debate this until the cows come home, but Unreal is much more significant to the development of new gaming (and recently, other) content than anything Valve has ever done. Valve is a middleman, Epic creates values.
For example, there's no VR for them to "push" without companies like Epic giving out engines to develop VR content for free.
Personally this statement:
> a straight downgrade from every single competitor
I strongly disagree with. Steam is awful on every machine I have it installed on, and it does everything worse than other programs. Browsing the store is faster and has fewer bugs in Firefox than it does in the Steam client. All my chat is in discord. I play several games that don't play well with a 4k resolution available and have to change my display resolution pretty regularly in between launching games, for this to work in steam one must manually kill all the background processes and relaunch steam. Never mind that in 2020, they're shipping a 32 bit binary.
Proton is cool and admirable. Steam is not. Origin, Epic, etc are all pieces of software that "just work." I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine. Everything else is better handled by other programs anyway, and Steam is so bug ridden that they don't need to buy exclusives for me to pick Epic over them.
> I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine. Everything else is better handled by other programs anyway
That's part of my point – EGS (and Steam, arguably) does nothing that you actually need for gaming itself. It may have some extra features, but that's not the core idea. We've been buying and launching games forever without them.
Now they're forced upon us however, and it's worth looking into what kind of value they give us. When I buy a game on Steam I can refund it if I don't like it, I can share it with my family when I'm not playing (not as good as a DRM-free copy, but closer than others still), play it on Linux even if it's unsupported, play it remotely from a weaker computer or a phone.
EGS in comparison provides me with a negative value. Not only it doesn't provide anything worth paying for (it's 2020 and "it's a downloader" is not really a selling point anymore), it's actually a negative value imo – were I to pirate the game I'd at least not have to install any additional crapware on my computer and open yet another account which will probably hoard my personal data forever.
I'm not saying Steam has the best client as a software – yes, it absolutely sucks. Galaxy or itch.io (and possibly EGS) have built far better working software – but it's still the software I don't need. With Steam the extras are at least compelling enough to justify using it over the alternatives. You do actually get more from it than you do from piratebay – something I can't say about EGS.
> Valve is a middleman, Epic creates values
I'd put it differently – Valve innovates, while Epic iterates. Epic built another engine. Another successful BR game. They're forcing yet another launcher. Their only positive impact on gaming is their engine – making them the "middleman" you mentioned. I'm excited for VR, and what HL:Alyx will inspire people to create. I'm not excited for yet another game on Texture Popping Engine 4.
I don't see how that's relevant to the cut a company takes for running a game store. Epic is only able to offer such a low % take on sales since they're subsidizing their store with the money they get from UE and Fortnite; Valve is already running their store sustainably and at a profit, much like how Epic would be if they weren't "angel investing" into their own product.
It's more a reflection on the reaction gamers have towards Epic's recent behavior.
Steam hasn't improved or fixed serious bugs for years because they have had no serious competition, all while taking a massive cut from developers' sales. On top of that, their game development stagnated and they really haven't given much back to gamers or game developers aside from a common store front and launcher (both of which suffer from numerous technical failures and poor engineering).
Meanwhile, Epic has developed kickass games and licensed the kickass engine behind it to game devs for pretty reasonable terms, and recently removed them wholesale for games under $1mm in revenue and waiving the license fee for release on their store (so they're not double dipping on the same games' revenues).
Epic has consistently worked to deliver better products cheaper to consumers and to make them easier to create for developers.
If we take a holistic view of what Epic has done versus Valve, we can excuse them a bit for buying an exclusive here or there to kickstart adoption. It's baffling to me that they even need to, because their software runs laps around Valve's.
GoG is my store of choice, and unfortunately I can't get Epic exclusives there. I'd also say that Valve's contribution to the gaming ecosystem (VR, Proton / Linux work, Remote Play Together) is comparable to Epic's (Unreal Engine).
For a monopolist they provide pretty compelling terms compared to Steam. If anything they are a healthy competitor to Steam, not only for developers but for consumers as well.
> a healthy competitor to Steam, not only for developers but for consumers as well
I'm not sure I agree here.
As a consumer, competition is good for me if I either get something I didn't already, or if I get the same but cheaper. EGS provides neither: it has less features than its competitors, and the prices are either the same, or the games are exclusives, making comparisons impossible. Exceptions, like Outer Worlds, cost exactly the same on Microsoft Store as it does on Epic Store.
The consumer gets nothing. They just get another meaningless alternative, another scavenger for their attention, loyalty and wallets.
Well you could view it as a net win for the consumer in that developers are getting more of a cut from sales, thus funding future development and patches for their games.
Isn’t that usually how monopolies start? They don’t lure you in with the slogan “you can only get it from us now”... The competition today is great, but they could easily become the next App Store tomorrow.
I don’t personally have a problem with Apple taking a cut - they are doing work, after all, but I think it should be more along the lines of covering the transaction fees and less “we’re taking a third of your hard work”.
The competition is broken, Steam still has a large majority of the marketshare, and they abuse it just like Apple does. Taking a cut is fine, but 30% margin is unconscionable and I applaud anyone that tries to break that paradigm.
Steam's monopoly is very different from Apple's since they only operate on already-open platforms. You can easily distribute your x86 game via any other store or your own launcher/website with little issue (only having to deal with the Oligopoly that is EV Code Signing, which you still might need to do while on Steam/Epic/etc). On Apple's platform, you have to go through them no matter what, making it impossible to put an app on iOS devices without their approval.
But on my PC I can buy games at other places too, I just prefer Steam due to convenience. It's very different than having to buy your games on a platform from someone specific.
> Epic is literally buying the companies behind long established games, removing game support for alternative OSes, and eventually only allowing access from "the epic store".
What are the examples where that happened?
They rarely buy game companies. With Psyonix they are making Rocket League free to play and won't be able to download it on Steam, but will still be on a bunch of platforms.
Rocket League; if I remember correctly the Linux support was dropped and it was intended to no longer be on Steam. Unsure where it stands now as it's been a while since I actively followed that game.
Not sure about buying established companies, but they bribed quite a few succesful kickstarter projects to go Epic exclusive for at least a year, including one I backed and had high hopes for.
No, you're wrong. The key difference you're missing is that Epic is not forcing any developers to do anything. They can do whatever they want, but IF and only IF they want some funding they need to sign a deal that benefits both parties. Gamers don't lose anything because they can still play the game, if anything it's better because now the game developer was able to polish or finish a game with the additional funding they have.
Epic has no "walled garden". The PC is an open platform. An iPhone is not. If I don't like the Epic store, I can install software from other sources just fine. Good luck with that on iOS.
Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive within that walled gardren (Permanently or temporarily).
> The PC is an open platform. An iPhone is not.
You are conflating hardware / software here. PC hardware is an open platform. The software is running on it is not necessarily. You could be running Linux or Windows for example. (Of which only Windows has an official Epic Games Launcher client).
> If I don't like the Epic store, I can install software from other sources just fine.
We are talking about the context of games so "software" means a particular game of which there is only one. Not "Any random note-taking application". Therefore, in the context of games, no you cannot get that software (game) legally from any other source if Epic paid for it to be exclusive.
That is not what a walled garden is. If the developers have a choice of where to sell their software, and choose to make it exclusive, that is totally fine! It's their software, they can choose how it is sold.
It's only a walled garden if there is no other option to distribute your games but with that company... so either an enforced monopoly (Apple) or de-facto monopoly (Steam, but this is arguable).
Developers have a choice when it comes to Apple as well. They make their software, and they chose to sell it on Android and iOS devices. Is it just because Apple is “big” and has cultivated themselves a valuable customer base the reason they are now... mandatory? No one is forcing you to release on iOS.
> Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive
That's not what walled garden means. PC game developers can sell their games any number of ways - if they choose one way instead of others that's up to them. For iOS there's no choice - either you sell through Apple or you don't support iOS. Hence "walled garden".
In short: if you have to pay people to come into your garden, it's not walled. ;)
aha, I think we are coming at the term "walled garden" from opposite ends.
For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity.
For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-up for the Epic Games Store because they paid to make them exclusive (again, permanently or temporarily).
As a customer, if the game I'm about to buy was able to be polished because of additional funding/saving, I'm interested in the game being exclusive.
As a customer, if the game company has better chances of surviving paying their employees a decent wage, making quality games that I can enjoy, I'm interested in the game being exclusive.
As a customer, if the market could have more store options other than Steam so prices can be more competitive and developers can choose better deals, I'm interested in games being exclusive.
Also as a customer I can decide to just not play the game because of exclusivity and move on.
Why is Mario not on Steam? Why is The Last of Us or Uncharted not on PC? Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Also, from the point of view of Epic, I guess it's expected they want something in return for funding projects.
I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.
> I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.
I guess it comes down to if you think having another game store & launcher installed in your PC is free (not speaking just monetarily here) or not. If you think it is free then there is no downside.
If you think it is not free:
* Another app to manage
* Another company to syphon data
* Another place you you have to register a credit card
* Another place where you have to add your friends or hope there is cross-store play
Then you will be annoyed that they have artificially restricted access to a game you could otherwise have bought directly or on your store / launcher of choice, e.g. Steam, GOG, with the only limitation being what the the developer wanted to release on.
Now I think EGS is mostly time-based exclusivity (I think there are maybe single digit permanently exclusive games on EGS) but the point still rankles. You can argue "Short term pain" (exclusives, assuming that stays short-term) for long term gain (more store competition) but that is not a guarantee.
> Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Many people, myself included, do not want the console exclusivity wars to be something that migrates to PC where there is 0 need for it (i.e. you are not developing your game on two completely different console architectures which adds to cost, maybe adding some store integration code only.) Especially paid exclusives.
I understand your position, but that's not what the term means. A walled garden is when one party controls the media or distribution of content on a given platform. If you make a PC game, EGS has no control at all over how you distribute it. If you then decide to sell it exclusively through them, that doesn't make them a walled garden - you had control of how your game got distributed, not them.
I am not sure in which regard you think there is no difference based on what I said. So to confirm where I think there is a difference:
Epic is the only PC store that will pay developers to restrict consumer choice by limiting distribution to their store (temporarily or permanently) only on what would otherwise be a competitive marketplace of stores on the PC platform. No other game store does this.
>No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.
This was the comparison, which is obviously wrong. Apple has a monopoly and a walled garden. Neither does Epic have a monopoly with their store, nor a walled garden, as the PC is not a walled garden.
Epic has signed a significant number of games as Epic Games exclusives [0], making them not part of the open platform but only available via the Epic Store.
Huh? When people talk about iOS being a walled garden they're referring to the fact that iOS apps can only be bought and sold via Apple. Consumers on that platform have no alternatives, and if Apple doesn't want a given app sold then it can't be bought.
EGS exclusives are nothing like that - anybody can sell PC games any way they like. If some particular developer chooses to sell their game via EGS and not other stores, that's up to the developer.
It's not a walled garden if people can enter and exit any time they like.
