7 ms·

Epic are doing a great job improving fairness in the gaming industry, and the economic conditions for developers. I'm looking forward to their Epic Store openin

Epic are doing a great job improving fairness in the gaming industry, and the economic conditions for developers. I'm looking forward to their Epic Store opening up to more (high quality) Indie games.

sgarman 7y ago
The % deal they are offering is a good start but I'm not sure buying exclusivity of game releases is good for "fairness in the gaming industry."
- typenil 7y ago
  I'm legitimately surprised to see so much good will towards Epic and Tim Sweeney here. I'm happy about their revenue share and was excited when they got started - until it became obvious that their tactics didn't align with their PR.
  - dx87 7y ago
    Yeah, their revenue share isn't about helping developers, it's about hurting Valve. When Epic pays a publisher for exclusivity, a lot of the time it's actually "sell it anywhere except Steam". Their deals still allow the developers to sell the game on stores that take the same 30% cut that Steam does. Plus there's the issue of a game being developed with Linux support, then Epic pays the publisher for exclusivity and the Linux version goes away because the EGS is Windows only.
    - rexf 7y ago
      EGS supports Windows & Mac. This link is directly from their home page https://launcher-public-service-prod06.ol.epicgames.com/launcher/api/installer/download/EpicGamesLauncher.dmg https://launcher-public-service-prod06.ol.epicgames.com/laun...
- foota 7y ago
  I agree with their stance that exclusives are the only way to break the hold Steam has on the market.
  - Deimorz 7y ago
    Yes, it's the only way when your product is objectively worse than Steam in practically every way, so the only way to get anyone to use it is to force them. It's not a good approach to competition though, and only hurts users instead of motivating innovation. I agree that Steam could use some competition, but Epic isn't actually competing with them, they're just forcibly buying their way into the market.
    - foota 7y ago
      Is steam really that great? I say this as someone who plays many hours of games. I think some things they do well are (which are admittedly important things): * reliability * security * fast downloads * consistent achievements between games But I think they're lagging others (mainly discord) in chat and social. Their voice quality is comparatively horrible. They don't really have a good space for a group to have a server like discord does, which really helps with cohesion. So while I definitely don't think epic is killing it in any of these areas, I don't think steam has that much going for it outside their core competency.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > Is steam really that great? Yes. Yes it is. Steam built the online games distribution market from basically nothing to where it is today. They helped usher in the indie game explosion, and gave players unprecedented tools for finding and assessing games. Not to mention the normalization of high-discount sales. Oh yeah, and also Valve went ahead and made Linux gaming a more realistic proposition than it has ever been in history.
        foota 7y ago
        I agree that steam's existence has done wonders for gaming, and I'm also happy with their work on linux gaming (and never mind some cheap sale games) But that doesn't mean that steam today is the best experience for gaming, and I would probably go so far as to argue that their hold on gaming is harmful to the industry, the largest issue imo being their large take of sales.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  A few exclusives is more than worth breaking Valve's near-monopoly and 30% toll on game revenue. That 30% is coming straight out of gamers' pockets and HN usually hates middlemen; it's baffling to see so many people in support of Valve.
  - Jach 7y ago
    30% became the industry standard not just for video games for a reason. It costs money to seamlessly do business across n countries, and it's not like Valve does nothing else to try and earn that fee either. Epic's play is to try and see if being a better looking deal for game devs will translate to being better for gamers or other groups (like linux users, open source advocates) too. We'll see. Valve has already demonstrated their goodwill towards all the groups multiple times, even if it's motivated by keeping their platform dominance.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > 30% became the industry standard not just for video games for a reason. Yeah, it became the industry standard because it rakes in mind-blowingly huge revenue for the app store owner, e.g. https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-revenue-2018/ https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-reven.... From the article: "It’s no wonder Services — which includes App Store revenue — has become an increasingly important business for Apple as hardware sales have slowed.". While you're correct that it costs money to run Steam, it's not _that_ much money.
      - Jach 7y ago
        There are probably economies of scale, sure, which is part of why Epic can get away with a lower fee for now. But it's also just business. They know how much it costs without economies of scale, and that sets a floor. https://youtube.com/watch?v=stxVBJem3Rs https://youtube.com/watch?v=stxVBJem3Rs Here's a talk from a very old indie company, there's one section talking about how they existed pre-Steam (and other stores they use since Steam's not exclusive) and appreciate what it's enabled.
- ssully 7y ago
  I am interested in hearing other opinions, but I personally do not care about exclusivity. I can download any store front application (Steam, Epic, GoG, Uplay, etc) for free, so the only inconvenience is having another app. Compare this to the days of console exclusives, and it's almost a non-issue. Outside of couch coop, I have no familiarity with Xbox exclusives like Gears or Halo because I could never afford more then one console until this current generation. My first experience with the Epic store was to get Satisfactory. And while it was annoying not being able to have it on steam, it really became a non-issue since everyone I play with uses Discord. Again, I am curious to hear other opinions on this because I really do not see the big deal in my experience.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > Compare this to the days of console exclusives, and it's almost a non-issue. That's the thing though, console exclusives at least saved developers the resources needed to port to another console. Especially in ye olden days, that was a non-trivial cost. The storefront exclusivity on PCs is completely artificial. But also, yeah, my computer is full of enough bloated useless-ware. At least GoG and Itch don't make me use a client.
    - favorited 7y ago
      Neither modern console nor PC game store exclusives are "completely artificial" when those contracts provide an influx of cash for the developer or studio. Gamedev isn't cheap, especially for indies and smaller studios.
    - seventhtiger 7y ago
      It's not artificial, it's financial. I was against Epic's aggressive moves, until I realized just how much cash they're injecting into developers. In the video game industry developers are the ones that bring the most value to customers. Valve has been a dragon hoarding its gold. The services they provide are better than Epic, but they really don't reflect their near-monopoly position for over a decade. 30% out of the majority of PC game sales, and what do we have to show for it? Valve doesn't even seem willing to compete and lower its cut. In the end going with Epic will guarantee the studio can make it to the next game. That's worth downloading another client. That and the free games.

sgarman 7y ago

The % deal they are offering is a good start but I'm not sure buying exclusivity of game releases is good for "fairness in the gaming industry."

typenil 7y ago
I'm legitimately surprised to see so much good will towards Epic and Tim Sweeney here. I'm happy about their revenue share and was excited when they got started - until it became obvious that their tactics didn't align with their PR.
- dx87 7y ago
  Yeah, their revenue share isn't about helping developers, it's about hurting Valve. When Epic pays a publisher for exclusivity, a lot of the time it's actually "sell it anywhere except Steam". Their deals still allow the developers to sell the game on stores that take the same 30% cut that Steam does. Plus there's the issue of a game being developed with Linux support, then Epic pays the publisher for exclusivity and the Linux version goes away because the EGS is Windows only.
  - rexf 7y ago
    EGS supports Windows & Mac. This link is directly from their home page https://launcher-public-service-prod06.ol.epicgames.com/launcher/api/installer/download/EpicGamesLauncher.dmg https://launcher-public-service-prod06.ol.epicgames.com/laun...
foota 7y ago
I agree with their stance that exclusives are the only way to break the hold Steam has on the market.
- Deimorz 7y ago
  Yes, it's the only way when your product is objectively worse than Steam in practically every way, so the only way to get anyone to use it is to force them. It's not a good approach to competition though, and only hurts users instead of motivating innovation. I agree that Steam could use some competition, but Epic isn't actually competing with them, they're just forcibly buying their way into the market.
  - foota 7y ago
    Is steam really that great? I say this as someone who plays many hours of games. I think some things they do well are (which are admittedly important things): * reliability * security * fast downloads * consistent achievements between games But I think they're lagging others (mainly discord) in chat and social. Their voice quality is comparatively horrible. They don't really have a good space for a group to have a server like discord does, which really helps with cohesion. So while I definitely don't think epic is killing it in any of these areas, I don't think steam has that much going for it outside their core competency.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > Is steam really that great? Yes. Yes it is. Steam built the online games distribution market from basically nothing to where it is today. They helped usher in the indie game explosion, and gave players unprecedented tools for finding and assessing games. Not to mention the normalization of high-discount sales. Oh yeah, and also Valve went ahead and made Linux gaming a more realistic proposition than it has ever been in history.
      - foota 7y ago
        I agree that steam's existence has done wonders for gaming, and I'm also happy with their work on linux gaming (and never mind some cheap sale games) But that doesn't mean that steam today is the best experience for gaming, and I would probably go so far as to argue that their hold on gaming is harmful to the industry, the largest issue imo being their large take of sales.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
A few exclusives is more than worth breaking Valve's near-monopoly and 30% toll on game revenue. That 30% is coming straight out of gamers' pockets and HN usually hates middlemen; it's baffling to see so many people in support of Valve.
- Jach 7y ago
  30% became the industry standard not just for video games for a reason. It costs money to seamlessly do business across n countries, and it's not like Valve does nothing else to try and earn that fee either. Epic's play is to try and see if being a better looking deal for game devs will translate to being better for gamers or other groups (like linux users, open source advocates) too. We'll see. Valve has already demonstrated their goodwill towards all the groups multiple times, even if it's motivated by keeping their platform dominance.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > 30% became the industry standard not just for video games for a reason. Yeah, it became the industry standard because it rakes in mind-blowingly huge revenue for the app store owner, e.g. https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-revenue-2018/ https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-reven.... From the article: "It’s no wonder Services — which includes App Store revenue — has become an increasingly important business for Apple as hardware sales have slowed.". While you're correct that it costs money to run Steam, it's not _that_ much money.
    - Jach 7y ago
      There are probably economies of scale, sure, which is part of why Epic can get away with a lower fee for now. But it's also just business. They know how much it costs without economies of scale, and that sets a floor. https://youtube.com/watch?v=stxVBJem3Rs https://youtube.com/watch?v=stxVBJem3Rs Here's a talk from a very old indie company, there's one section talking about how they existed pre-Steam (and other stores they use since Steam's not exclusive) and appreciate what it's enabled.
ssully 7y ago
I am interested in hearing other opinions, but I personally do not care about exclusivity. I can download any store front application (Steam, Epic, GoG, Uplay, etc) for free, so the only inconvenience is having another app. Compare this to the days of console exclusives, and it's almost a non-issue. Outside of couch coop, I have no familiarity with Xbox exclusives like Gears or Halo because I could never afford more then one console until this current generation. My first experience with the Epic store was to get Satisfactory. And while it was annoying not being able to have it on steam, it really became a non-issue since everyone I play with uses Discord. Again, I am curious to hear other opinions on this because I really do not see the big deal in my experience.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > Compare this to the days of console exclusives, and it's almost a non-issue. That's the thing though, console exclusives at least saved developers the resources needed to port to another console. Especially in ye olden days, that was a non-trivial cost. The storefront exclusivity on PCs is completely artificial. But also, yeah, my computer is full of enough bloated useless-ware. At least GoG and Itch don't make me use a client.
  - favorited 7y ago
    Neither modern console nor PC game store exclusives are "completely artificial" when those contracts provide an influx of cash for the developer or studio. Gamedev isn't cheap, especially for indies and smaller studios.
  - seventhtiger 7y ago
    It's not artificial, it's financial. I was against Epic's aggressive moves, until I realized just how much cash they're injecting into developers. In the video game industry developers are the ones that bring the most value to customers. Valve has been a dragon hoarding its gold. The services they provide are better than Epic, but they really don't reflect their near-monopoly position for over a decade. 30% out of the majority of PC game sales, and what do we have to show for it? Valve doesn't even seem willing to compete and lower its cut. In the end going with Epic will guarantee the studio can make it to the next game. That's worth downloading another client. That and the free games.