I hate when a PC game is ONLY available on Epic Games store
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm annoyed when a game isn't on GOG. Epic's issue is that I use it the least and so I'm less likely to boot up a game on it unless I'm actively seeking it out.
One of the annoying thing about epic exclusives is that the focus is on steam, but GOG is affected too and loses out on games too until the deal expires.
Steam is their scapegoat, they want a Monopoly without having to say they have a Monopoly.
Wait, who want a monopoly? Epic? The Epic store is like a tenth of Steam's size, and most of that is down to Fortnite alone. Hard to have a monopoly when you're struggling to break double digit share.
... right, which is why I said they want a monopoly, not that they have a monopoly.
Well, yeah, presumably they all do. I'm sure the kebab place next door would love to have a monopoly, it just doesn't look like it's in the cards, you know?
Yes, and if the kebab store pitched a fit every time someone provided a better product than them, calling that competition a monopolist, I'd have the same criticism of that kebab shop.
If they're just doing their best to provide a quality product... I wouldn't like that they have a monopoly, but if they're not in any way abusing it... that sounds like they've earned their place. The problem lies in the people not putting forth enough effort (despite have the resources to do so) to match.
Kebab store if they were epic like in their strategy would not be throwing a fit, but making exclusivity deals with suppliers so that their competitors in the area lose access to them. So trying to increase consumers having to go to their kebab store to get specific meals due to inability of other stores to offer it or not retain the same quality anymore. Also look into regulations to try and prevent potential competitors from opening up next to them or at least delay when they can open.
And don't forget that they refuse to take credit card (ie not having a shopping cart in this example) for 2 fucking years
No, that's not how that works at all. Monopolies are bad (and indeed unlawful) even if people think you got them by being super cool.
Google didn't get a monopoly on advertising and search by sucking at it. They had the best search engine and design in a crowded market and that's why you don't say you "Altavista'd" something. But that's still a bad thing and they still should get broken up into manageable chunks, as current regulators are trying to do. Ditto for Apple and all these other oligopolistic online companies.
And... you know, Valve. Maybe. At some point. Not quite there yet. But that's bad even if you like Steam or if they have the better feature set. Which they do. Especially if they have the better feature set, in fact, because like all these other oligopolistic companies, the more time they have to establish dominance and get people to sink further into their ecosystem the harder it is to break it up later. That's true of kebabs AND software platforms.
People who hate on Steam alternatives want a monopoly
No, people who back monopolistic, anti-consumer companies like EGS want a monopoly.
If you actually look, nobody ever complains about GOG or Itch.io. That's because they don't pull anticompetitive bullshit like the paid exclusives that EGS relies on
You think Steam isn't a monopoly?
Read my comment again
You didn't answer my question
Your "question" was irrelevant whattaboutism. Go read my comment again. I doubt you will though, as a quick look at your other comments have proven you to be intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Morally bankrupt? I'm not the guy defending the billionaire yacht collector who operates a monopoly here.
The company providing an actual alternative to steam's real monopoly is not the one to be complaining about
Are they providing an actual alternative, or just creating a pseudo alternative then removed about how someone else gets more attention?
It is, in fact, an alternative to steam. What a stupid thing to say
Epic is nowhere near as good as steam. Steam I can open, leave open and ignore. Epic force refreshes pages like the fucking library and then my internet cracks a fit at the sudden large data draw.
Shop wise both are equal, epic now has reviews on the bottom of games so you don't buy some 1 star trash without warning, but they are both more than just a shop.
I'm not sure what you're responding to, but it wasn't anyone I said
It's not really an alternative to steam because it can't be used the same way. If epic is left open in the background online games randomly lag out due to epic, making it not a viable alternative.
It sounds like slime you're blaming your shitty internet on epic instead of providing an actual argument for why epic isn't actually an alternative (it is). You want to suck up to a monopoly, just be honest about it.
Epic force refreshes pages including the library, that's not a good thing. Don't use shit I don't want you to use. You can stop it auto updating the launcher though, which is a thing steam doesn't seem to allow. In general, I don't want any of my launchers doing things without me telling it to.
I have Epic on my computer, tons of games, even a handful I bought. It's better than it was at launch, by a lot, but it isn't something you can just leave open and trust to do fuck all for the most part. GoG is good for this, I can forget it's open for days because it doesn't do anything until you want it to
I actually wanted Epic to succeed enough that I messaged their support about the library being force refreshed, it's apparently intended. If all I wanted was to suck up to a monopoly, why would I put any effort in to making it usable for me?
Anyone believing Steam isn't a monopoly is seriously uninformed on the topic or letting their enjoy enjoyment of the platform cloud their view of reality.
While it sucks to have games get exclusivity agreements with EGS when EGS sucks compared to Steam, it doesn't suddenly mean that Steam isn't a monopoly.
Except they're trying to strongarm people into using it by using huge amounts of money to buy exclusivity rights.
People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers. But steam provides a very user friendly experience with lots of benefits and features like mod hosting, remote play together, etc. Epic provides a store that people hate using, and people only put up with because epic abused fortnite's success to buy exclusivity deals*. Despite being the much smaller storefront, Epic already feels like the abusive monopoly in the PC gaming space.
*Many people also play on Epic because of free games, which is a valid and pro-consumer way to attract users. I'm 100% cool with this strategy, although giving away merchandise at a loss is also a common monopoly strategy.
With regards to
People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers.
It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.
The "commission" would be Valve's cut on sales made through Steam, which starts at 30% and drops to 20% as sales increase. Valve defended the percentage as "industry standard" when Wolfire's lawsuit was first filed, but that's no longer the case: The Epic Games Store and Microsoft both take just 12% of sales made through their stores.
Also relevant, from 2021 but the same lawsuit,
The Wolfire lawsuit estimates that Valve controls "approximately 75 percent" of the $30 billion market for PC game sales, a number that lines up with other public estimates of Steam's dominance.
I like Steam, I'm not hating on Steam, but rushing to defend it from people saying it's a monopoly (or calling Epic Games Store a monopoly) is very much denying reality.
Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it's not an business model to point to, since it's subsidized by unreal and fortnite.
Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.
One actually better to point to might be GOG which is also taking 30%, but in 2021 had a 1 million dollar loss. https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.
All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy
Loss leaders that lead to buying other things that lead to overall profitability for that section of the business.
This entire division is operating at a loss. Point isn't that it is unusual or underhanded. It's that because of the way the division is currently run it is not a business model to point to as being sustainable.
Well yeah, fighting for market share against an entrenched monopoly isn't cheap. That's not a reason to cheer on the monopoly though.
That's not what the conversation was about. It was about whether the business model is actually viable.
If the business of that section is turning a profit it lends more support as opposed to being seen as a side project that doesn't need to turn a profit. Which is why I included GOG into the mix, since Microsoft and Epic are huge companies with alternative revenue streams.
That 30% is standard for most storefronts. Just look at Google Play and Apple's App Store.
If you're that put off by 30% cuts then don't look into retail stores because their markups make that look like chump change.
It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.
Actually, it's generally publishers, not developers that end up paying the 30% cut. For most games the developer gets paid upfront by the publisher, and the publisher pockets the difference between development costs and sales. I'd also like to point out that prices between EGS and Steam are generally the same, so instead of getting lower priced games as promised, the publishers are just pocketing the larger profits.
Repeat Tim Swiney's fake talking points all you want, the fact of the matter is that Valve isn't behaving like a monopoly, even if they command a huge portion of the market. The reason they're so big in the first place is specifically because they're very pro-consumer
It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.
Actually, it's generally publishers, not developers that end up paying the 30% cut.
I'm keeping the model simple by equating publisher with developer. Basically, you've got the consumer, the store, and the supplier. That some (most) developer studios go through a publisher for funding is a business practice that's actually unrelated to Steam. Especially because they allow indie content.
30% as industry standard
That's the same as app stores/etc, and is still a common cut to take. I'm not convinced the cuts that Epic is taking are actually sustainable for offering downloads/updates/etc for a game indefinitely, but it's hard to tell since the Epic store is already bleeding money.
I'll also mention that Audible (which has a monopoly in the audiobook space) reportably takes a 60-75% cut of audiobooks sold on their platform (they take only 60% if you agree to sell exclusively on audible, but they take the full 75% if you want to sell the book somewhere else as well). Monopolies abusing their position is really common, but I haven't seen anything similar from Steam that makes me think they're abusing their position. I suspect PC gaming would be in a far worse state if another company controlled the popular storefront.
Would you do your job and maybe receive an income but only years later, based on results and how happy you made your boss?
The devs and publishers who sign those deals are the ones you should be angry at, Epic is offering them guaranteed income in exchange for timed exclusivity, Valve is offering them access to a bigger player base in exchange for a gamble.
Being a small game dev has a lot of uncertainty and risk. I wouldn't blame any small dev for taking a guaranteed paycheck from Epic. Larger studios with safe prospects should be blamed though imo. Gearbox with Borderlands 3 for example.
Doesn't matter the size of the studio, in the end they have people to pay and Steam is asking them to take a gamble in the hope that they'll make enough to compensate the money they spent. We've seen but studios crash and burn, hell Sony wasted home many millions on that game that was online for a couple of days? I'm sure they would have been happy to have gotten a cheque instead of nothing!
The devs and publishers who sign those deals are the ones you should be angry at
And that's why I don't buy games from those devs and publishers
GOG is called Good Old Games for a reason. They aren’t losing out by having to wait. I always buy games there first, then Epic (if it’s an exclusive), then Steam.
Nothing beats GOG for preservation and gamers rights to actually own their games.
On July 27th (Saturday) I uploaded a new trailer announcing the Steam launch date. On July 30th (Tuesday) I was contacted by the Epic Store, proposing that I enter into an exclusivity agreement with them instead of releasing DARQ on Steam. They made it clear that releasing DARQ non-exclusively is not an option. I rejected their offer before we had a chance to talk about money.
....
It was important to me to give players what they wanted: options. A lot of people requested that DARQ be made available on GOG. I was happy to work with GOG to bring the game to their platform. I wish the Epic Store would allow indie games to be sold there non-exclusively, as they do with larger, still unreleased games (Cyberpunk 2077), so players can enjoy what they want: a choice.
What’s the point of your comment? It doesn’t change the fact that, at the end of the exclusivity period, those games will show up on GOG, which doesn’t care if they’re “old” games that don’t sell much.
Nobody is paying more than a couple dollars at most for Fallout 1 & 2, but do you see GOG throwing a fit about that? How do you suppose Epic exclusives are going to change that?
Well, yeah, but if I was going to get pissed about that, then Epic would be way low in my list of priorities. It's Steam sucking up all the oxygen in that particular room. I own every Yakuza game they made available on GOG and they've stopped doing that. That wasn't Epic.
Sounds like that was Sega.
Oh, it was Sega. That's the thing about having an entrenched dominant position, you don't need to invest money to get exclusives, even when you are paying out a smaller share.
Gaben may be a libertarian, but I'm not. If you set up systemic reasons why I'm getting boned it's still your fault.
So the systemic reason of... providing a quality storefront? Are you demanding that they just make things shittier so that other people have a chance?
This has got to be the most twisted criticism of Steam I've ever heard...
I... wait, what?
So are you okay with exclusives but only when the developer is not getting paid for it? Or only when it's on Steam because you just happen to like Steam?
That's such a weird take. It owns the inconsistency so thoroughly I have trouble navigating it.
Since apparently I have to explain this for some reason, I don't particularly like exclusives in general and prefer platform-agnostic games so I can pick where to get them. but if you're only going to support a store, I'm perfectly fine with developers getting paid by Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic or whever else. You do you and keep your workers employed any way you see fit.
And when I get a choice I tend to pick GOG because... well, they don't need a little reminder that you're not buying the game you're buying in the payment page, so I get to back up my installers and keep them forever.
Now, THAT is a criticsm of Steam that I'm actually making here.
I generally am less bothered by exclusives that are a result of a company deciding to not release at a certain storefront as opposed to being bribed and contractually prevented from releasing elsewhere after signing. Those at least have a chance of being released somewhere else if they change their mind.
Like Yakuza was a console exclusive for a long time but not because Sony forced them to. So when they decided PC games was worth venturing into they ended up doing so as opposed to being contractually prevented. Same goes for Persona.
That's the difference from contract based exclusives.
They all have a chance at getting re-released later, unless they are first party (and these days even then).
I mean, Uncharted 4 is on GOG. Not The Last of Us, for some reason. That sucks.
I'd love to see Mario Galaxy on PC officially, but that's not gonna happen, I'm not gonna get mad about it. But Alan Wake II? Yeah, that'll probably make it elsewhere.
Ultimately all it takes for an exclusivity deal to be lifted is for the people involved to agree to lift it. That can be because the exclusivity is timed or because they got to some agreement on it. There is no fundamentally nefarious reason getting paid for exclusivity is worse than Valve being the only platform that is viable for a particular release. The impact is the same.
Maybe I'm just too old and can't cope with the weird whiplash of being there to hear people rage about Final Fantasy showing up on Xbox only to then see this weird vitriol for a storefront compensating devs to get an exclusive on a game inside the same platform.
Like, I get being mad that you'd have to buy a different console to play a thing, but dude, it's a free piece of software, you can just... install it.
Honestly, both things are sheer tribalism and I've never been there for it. Not since the dumb Sega vs Nintendo schoolyard nonsense.
I mean, Uncharted 4 is on GOG. Not The Last of Us, for some reason. That sucks.
Uncharted was released in 2022 on steam then 2023 on GOG.
Sony has released on GOG later. It tends to be the trend because companies are in the mindset of PC has a lot of pirates. So selling a game without drm and an installer is not something they rush to do until they feel sales are on a downward trend.
Now that Sony has moved to PSN requirements future drm free plans are in question. Only way for GOG to get day 1 releases consistently would be to give up on DRM free requirements.
So it's not really any surprise what the reasons may be.
And it sucks, whether it's a surprise or not.
I'm not angrier at something being absent from Steam because Epic paid for an exclusive than I am at any other reason why a game wouldn't make it to my storefront of choice.
Which is, let's be clear, very lightly angry. This is choosing a store to buy videogames, not seeking revenge for my clan in holy war.
That's called the cost of running a DRM free storefront.
Yakuza collection didn't release until 2023. Companies usually do delayed releases when sales are on a downward trend if they end up releasing on GOG. And that's a big if because of no DRM requirements.
Unless you are a recent user of GOG, delayed releases shouldn't be anything new and has more to do with DRM. If you want DRM free you have to be willing to accept delayed releasing or convince GOG to give up on DRM requirements if you just want games on GOG available right away.
Stuff like denuvo exists because companies are very protective of their assets and are really reluctant to offer DRM free. That's the main obstacles for GOG. DRM.
Yeah. Because Steam has DRM. Steam IS DRM. That's the problem it originally solved, back when Amazon was still a bookstore.
So screw Steam and other overprotective corporations, I want my PC games DRM-free, since physical copies aren't an option (which is my console solution, thank you very much). They can come meet my requirements or I will continue to prioritize GOG where I can and be annoyed at the lack of a GOG release otherwise. I don't want GOG to give up on the DRM requirement, I want them to get so popular that publishers have to comply with it whether they like it or not.
So from that perspective, if Epic and Steam want to have a pissing contest, I'm in full "let them fight" mode. Who cares.
Sorry but companies were trying DRM even before them using stuff like rotating paper wheels before DRM tech improved. Sony even installed root kits for music CDs. Denuvo was created because it was believed DRM options weren't strong enough and some companies use additional DRM on top of denuvo.
Yeah, and they were all failing at it.
Until Steam.
We actually used to be a bit generally mad about it. Plenty of big declarations about skipping Half-Life 2, when that used mandatory Steam authentication for the first time. A bit of a feeding frenzy to crack it in retaliation, too.
Being old makes it harder to get super mad about this.
There was the whole pc games are dead claims even when steam started becoming bigger.
I just don't see this utopia you believe it would be without steam. I just see me having a console and not bothering with a pc due to lack of games.
Who wants Steam gone? You can't have competition without competitors.
I want Steam to exist. And Epic. And definitely GOG. Wouldn't mind at all if GOG was the leader of that pack, or at least if Steam implemented similar policies to theirs.
What I don't want is Steam dominating 80% of the market and making it impossible to make PC games without giving them 30% of everything you make. That's bad.
Zero DRM isn't the only reason games aren't published on GOG right away, and that may not even be the main reason for the countless games that release day one without Denuvo.
GOG also doesn't have the best infrastructure for pushing updates. Stories abound of it being a slow process, whether physically uploading the files or authentication taking a while. Invariably, game updates will show up later on GOG than they will on Steam. GOG also has a very consumer-friendly return policy. All that, combined with it being simply a smaller marketplace, doesn't place it well in cost-benefit analysis.
The fact that gog.com let me forego launchers all together as well as letting me download the game installers and put them on my NAS means a lot to me. I don't remember the last time I had GOG Galaxy installed, I just download, install and play the games and then call it a day.
You can go that way. I'd rather have a front-end to manage it, but having the option means you can do it manually, rely on Galaxy or use a third party front-end pretty interchangeably.
If you use GOG Galaxy it has Epic store intergration to launch games, and then closes the app when you quit too. Never have to see the Epic launcher.
Yeah, there are a bunch of third party launchers with integrations. Launchbox will do most PC storefronts.
I wish Galaxy was a bit lighter, though, because once I plug in everything it supports we start getting into five digit counts and the whole thing slows to a crawl. It's a bit better now, but it was borderline unusable at some points.
Yeah it's a bit of a slog with too many but I find it's perfect for Epic and Microsoft games.