Epic's free game vault campaign precipitates 61m active users

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

GOG Galaxy is actually much polished launcher than EGS made on a shoestring budget,and Epic uses massive venture funding from companies such as China's Tencent(that Tencent). So they have had no real excuse not to have make it better at launch,and a number of features I pointed out were in stuff like the Discord game launcher(!). People compared it to lots of other launchers out there,and pointed out the problems and lack of features it had compared to some of the competitors at launch. The whole but....but...Steam was just a deflection,because you could insert any other competing launcher/gamestore there.


Plus a lot of the criticism forced Epic to actually try and integrate some of those features over the last 18 months. Like I said with my examples of Toyota and AMD. They were fighting against not only powerful incumbants but also didn't have prestige on their side. In the end,look how they all succeeded,and Valve is nothing compared to the competition that Toyota and AMD had to compete with,who played every trick they could to bankrupt them. If anything Valve seems to be utterly laid back,as they could probably do the same as Epic is doing TBF,but so far haven't.

Also,I think you need to understand why regional pricing is a thing - piracy. Piracy was not just about price but accessibility. The reason you have regional pricing is due to the fact piracy was the worst in poorer countries,due to lower incomes. Publishers were actively moaning at Valve for making regional pricing. It's only when they started to realise they actually had more revenue and less piracy did they all jump onboard. But if you want to moan about higher pricing,it's not Valve or Epic,its all the games publishers.

Jim Sterling made a good video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcebekI9F7g

Also the whole revenue split stuff is actually not as clear as Epic PR it out to be,and people need to be wary of the way their CEO makes various statements:
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...s-gears-of-war

Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on PC. We must fight it

In my view, this is the most aggressive move Microsoft has ever made. While the company has been convicted of violating antitrust law in the past, its wrongful actions were limited to fights with specific competitors and contracts with certain PC manufacturers.

This isn’t like that. Here, Microsoft is moving against the entire PC industry – including consumers (and gamers in particular), software developers such as Epic Games, publishers like EA and Activision, and distributors like Valve and Good Old Games.

So surely if he says a Valve monopoly is "bad" then MS coming along,would do wonders to break it...oh wait,it isn't??

A few years later,he literally uses the same tactic as what he accused MS off,as "saving the gaming industry". Just look at his statements on social media. Or his statements that gamers don't control the places they buy games from,but companies like HIS do(he is developer so gamers need to suck it up). Storefronts are "perfect" and exclusives "are great for consumers".

What Epic didn't tell you is consoles for example have a lower revenue split,and that literally all the other stores,be it GOG,Origin,Steam etc settled on the same revenue split. THE SAME. But the problem is none of the other launchers seem to do well,so one has to think why this is,and why all these developers didn't jump to those platforms. Epic not only has to have a lower revenue split but throws millions of USD at developers too. That sounds like a lot to even get some Indie games off Steam. That is the thing here - what are the incentives Valve gave companies to use Steam for over 10 years?? Why does Epic NEED to throw money at developers to force companies off Steam?? It tells me,there are probably some reasons which are not quite obvious here,from a developers view compared to the other platforms.

The issue is the smaller stores,have very high fixed overheads,so what has happened is GOG actually does not make as much money as you think they do. So actually this "war" between Steam and EGS,actually also helps Steam,because it will bankrupt every smaller competitor out there. This is exactly what they want.

So please try and use the smaller competitors and gamestores too. I have rarely bought any reasonably priced game directly though the Steam storefront - some of you should try and support our own independent sellers,such as Game,etc. If you buy directly from Steam and EGS,they get more of the cut.

If you want to look at a good analysis of the whole problem,watch this video from Jim Sterling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foeYsvbOxJ0

He has for years complained about Valve sitting on their arses,but listen to what he says about Epic too.

[Wrinkly]

My strategy is to take the freebies, pirate the exclusives and use GOG / Steam for everything else. Why? I just can't support Epic's exclusivity BS.

[spacein_vader]

My strategy is to take the freebies, pirate the exclusives and use GOG / Steam for everything else. Why? I just can't support Epic's exclusivity BS.

You don't have to sail the seven seas to avoid their exclusivity, just buy it on another store after the exclusivity ends. That way the Devs/publisher will see there's a big appetite for selling on other stores and might be less keen to go exclusive to Epic next time.

By pirating it you're showing you aren't prepared to buy it, which means they'll ignore you.

[Jedibeeftrix]

Re: 61m active epic accounts vs 75m active steam accounts...

Yeah, sure, but i spend [actual] money on Steam.
Never spent a spent a penny on Epic store, my account is way active!

[watercooled]

My strategy is to take the freebies, pirate the exclusives and use GOG / Steam for everything else. Why? I just can't support Epic's exclusivity BS.

So you'd be happy to support Steam exclusivity while using another store's exclusivity as an excuse for piracy, basically.

[Iota]

I mean it's great that people get free games from Epic, if that's what they want. They're also welcome to use their launcher if that's what they want. I see no issue with that.

I still refuse to support Epic for the exclusives they pay for, equally I refuse to support publishers and developers of those titles that are paid exclusives. For me this isn't about who is better between Epic and Steam, if anything I've gained respect for Steam for not following down the same route as Epic on the paid exclusives front, this is more about business practices. I'd be the same if Steam decided to do paid exclusives and not want to support them.

But to each their own, if you're willing to support or use a platform that uses those business practices, that's entirely your choice.

[Percy1983]

I mean it's great that people get free games from Epic, if that's what they want. They're also welcome to use their launcher if that's what they want. I see no issue with that.

I still refuse to support Epic for the exclusives they pay for, equally I refuse to support publishers and developers of those titles that are paid exclusives. For me this isn't about who is better between Epic and Steam, if anything I've gained respect for Steam for not following down the same route as Epic on the paid exclusives front, this is more about business practices. I'd be the same if Steam decided to do paid exclusives and not want to support them.

But to each their own, if you're willing to support or use a platform that uses those business practices, that's entirely your choice.

Steam has gone down the exclusives route as they already had near exclusivity on everything they sell as they are the default platform for many.

I do find the discussion on features interesting as to me epic and steam are equal (if anything steam is bloated). I open launcher, click game, play. I buy games ocasionally so haven't noticed no cart but do admit this could be a minor issue if purchasing 2 games at the same time. Of course this element is purely opinion and different use cases.

What do you have against publishers who go down the exclusives route? its a business decision which benefits them and doesn't hurt you as the game is still available to you, if you choose to deny yourself the game applying morals to business then thats not their fault.

[Spud1]

What do you have against publishers who go down the exclusives route? its a business decision which benefits them and doesn't hurt you as the game is still available to you, if you choose to deny yourself the game applying morals to business then thats not their fault.

It means there is zero competition for that product, with a sole distributor who sets one single price. No consumer choice and higher prices.

Steam, Origin and uplay all have exclusives for games they develop themselves, but they don't pay publisher huge amount of money in bribes to only sell their games via their store at that fixed price, like Epic do.

Doesn't benefit anyone other than the publisher and Epic - the consumers and developers are the ones who get hurt by this practice.

[Ttaskmaster]

It means there is zero competition for that product, with a sole distributor who sets one single price. No consumer choice and higher prices.

That's what they said about Steam, about Amazon, about your water company, about so many effective monopolies, all of which still dominate.... And yet whenever there is competition, it's mostly about who can screw the most money out of their customers.... because it's a competition. It's all about eliminating the other competitors so you emerge the clear winner.

Why do you think Intel and Nvidia are still in business, despite being such dodgy, shady dealers next to the awesome AMD underdog?

Steam, Origin and uplay all have exclusives for games they develop themselves, but they don't pay publisher huge amount of money in bribes to only sell their games via their store at that fixed price, like Epic do.

You don't need to when you're basically the only legal option.

Doesn't benefit anyone other than the publisher and Epic - the consumers and developers are the ones who get hurt by this practice.

Then the Devs will stop selling on there and customers will stop buying. The evil empire will crumble and Steam will once again dominate with no-one to challenge them. What have you got to worry about?

[Spud1]

Then the Devs will stop selling on there and customers will stop buying. The evil empire will crumble and Steam will once again dominate with no-one to challenge them. What have you got to worry about?

I'm trying not to argue too much anymore on this as I know its one of those things where I won't convince those who don't see what's wrong with Epic - but just a really important point - it's not the developers of the games who make the choice to take the bribes, and it's not those developers who profit out of it.

The publishers make the decision and take the higher % cut. Some publishers may pass some of that on, but not all of them. The developers do seem to get a lot of the bribe money through that system (as it can be used to fund finishing games, particularly from smaller studios), but even then that is clawed back before the devs start to get any actual royalties.

The developers are not at fault here.

[Ttaskmaster]

it's not the developers of the games who make the choice to take the bribes, and it's not those developers who profit out of it.

Oh?
Tell that to the devs who are personally commenting on why they did/did not take the exclusivity deal underhanded bribe offered by Epic, then... Those poor, innocent souls seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it was them who made the choice... !!

The publishers make the decision and take the higher % cut. Some publishers may pass some of that on, but not all of them. The developers do seem to get a lot of the bribe money through that system (as it can be used to fund finishing games, particularly from smaller studios), but even then that is clawed back before the devs start to get any actual royalties.

Citations? Sources?

The developers are not at fault here.

I don't think anyone would really argue that. They're stuck with whatever platforms are available to them, so will likely go with whichever offers the deal that personally suits them best.

[Spud1]

All info comes from the various comments from developers directly on reddit/twitter etc. If needed i am happy to find links at some point, but google is your friend.

remember that a lot of smaller devs either self publish are are owned directly by them - e.g. coffee stain or Glumberland, and they also tend to be the most vocal about this issue.

edit: one example i had in my history.

45% of control's "epic money" taken by the publisher. Remainder given to the devs but must be paid back via royalties.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/epic-paid...%20505%20Games.

This seems to be a fairly common model.

As I say though, I won't change your mind. If you think this is good, then fine....I will still be banging on about how bad this is for everyone in the industry, especially consumers, probably forever.

Similarly I will never stop going on about why Brexit is a terrible thing for the UK (particularly off the back of Cov-19!), but I won't change leaver's mind on that either

[Ttaskmaster]

All info comes from the various comments from developers directly on reddit/twitter etc. If needed i am happy to find links at some point, but google is your friend.

Your assertions, your citations...

remember that a lot of smaller devs either self publish are are owned directly by them - e.g. coffee stain or Glumberland, and they also tend to be the most vocal about this issue.

Doesn't matter - The fact is many Devs can still make the choice over where their game is sold.

This is, of course, in contrast to situations where a publisher (such as SEGA) is the one who contracts the dev (such as Rebellion) to dev a game for them, whereupon the game belongs to the publisher and thus with them rests the choice of where it gets sold.

45% of control's "epic money" taken by the publisher. Remainder given to the devs but must be paid back via royalties.

Yeah.
That's often how it goes when dev and publisher are separate, or inter-contracted, though. Nothing unique to Epic.
It works the same in the film industry, between film makers, studios and distributors.

As I say though, I won't change your mind. If you think this is good, then fine....I will still be banging on about how bad this is for everyone in the industry, especially consumers, probably forever.

If you don't like it, don't buy from Epic. If the Devs don't like it, they won't sign the contract and can stop selling their stuff.

Similarly I will never stop going on about why Brexit is a terrible thing for the UK (particularly off the back of Cov-19!), but I won't change leaver's mind on that either

How can you say that is bad when nothing has even happened yet and thus no-one knows what it will turn out like?