19 ms·

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS ven

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS vendor, plus a few specality competing ones for things like games, where both consumers and developers have the choice of where they download/publish. Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games that they otherwise wouldnt be able to make. Consumers get more games, plus they get hefty discounts or even just free games. Ideally we would then see Valve/Steam trying to compete in response. It's win/win/win.

tpxl 6y ago
You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it ever again. I even bought similar games which are available on platforms I already have instead.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    In the case of Epic games, they shovel money their way with a _biiig_ shovel, even for free games. I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Is installing another store really so burdensome? It costs nothing but a few minutes of time. GOG Galaxy can even help consolidate them.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      Yet another US service to slurp my data and give it to the NSA.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Sadly the only alternative is to buy used, disc copies. Digital collections certainly have privacy tradeoffs. Though I'm quite happy with many of the upsides: cross-play, automatic cloud save, (sometimes) cross-save, no disc swapping, fewer things to clutter my living space.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      Until epic supports proton, yes. It requires a whole new OS. But I was also thinking in terms of actual platforms like "Xbox only for N months"
  - doikor 6y ago
    Epic pays the developer for X units sold before selling anything. Basically guarantee the developer to make at least that much sold. The developer still stands to make extra buck if the game sells really well (when selling more then those X units Epic paid them beforehand) This is great for smaller devs as you basically have 0 advertising budget and rely on worth of mouth for your game to be a success or not. So you can take guaranteed money and pay yourself (and your employees) or take the gamble and hope your game sells well. Also Epic takes smaller cut then Valve does on Steam. (12% vs 30%) Also these exclusives to Epic are timed. So after a couple months the developer is free to publish their game on Steam/GOG/Windows Store/whatever PC platform (Epic store exclusivity does not apply for consoles)
- deif 6y ago
  The never ending cycle of monopoly vs convenience. Let us forget the fact that exclusives make the game devs more money than they would've got otherwise and the games are eventually released on steam anyway.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    Exclusives do nothing for convenience, and if the game gets released a year or two later, it's no longer "next-gen" or whatever.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Are any of their thirty party, exclusivity deals permanent? If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck. Having another store is a low barrier to entry. Imagine there was only one store for groceries in your whole state. And when you go to court a chorus rebukes you for not selling your produce there instead of opening another nearby.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    >If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Yes, there is nuance that I left out of my post. I agree with you here. >If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck. If you want to play any Epic games without Epic game store, you're out of luck as well. I have no problem with another store, I have problems with another store having exclusives which do not benefit the consumer in any way (directly).
- kgabis 6y ago
  Surely developers don't have to release games as epic exclusives if they don't want to. Also, epic's cut is much lower that valve's (12% vs 30%). I'd rather buy games on epic so that more money goes to creators.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I don't think the exclusives are good for users, but from a developer perspective this is an oversimplification. Epic is essentially pre-funding games. If you're an indie dev who's been working on a game for 3-5 years, literally everything you have is riding on that release going well. It's incredibly stressful. So suddenly this billionaire shows up and says, "no content changes, no interference, we'll just guarantee up front that your game is profitable. We'll just give you the money to justify the last 5 years of your life, and after 6-12 months you can sell wherever." Of course developers take that. Suddenly you have the freedom to be experimental, to make games that are personal and niche without worrying about going broke. There's a real sense in which PC exclusives are bad for the industry overall, I don't like the direction the market is headed. But from a developer perspective Epic has been pretty objectively good for indie games. The lost revenue from not being on Steam means nothing if Epic is willing to fund your game upfront. Think about how much peace of mind that means as a developer, to not have everything riding on a single launch, to not have to spend months leading up to launch getting sick worrying about what's going to happen. And also let's be real, from a user perspective we had Steam exclusives, even if Valve didn't directly require them. I buy my games exclusively DRM free, I won't use Steam or Epic. The number of games that refuse to release outside of Steam, or who tie their multiplayer and modding communities to Steam's servers have been a pain in my side for over a decade. There are games on GoG that are missing patches and that will never get multiplayer, because Steam just happened to release frameworks encouraging devs to make themselves utterly dependent on Valve's infrastructure. I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. But at least a game that's exclusive to Epic games store eventually becomes non-exclusive -- on average, I'll end up getting access to it later. Most of the games that get released exclusively on Steam never get ported off and I never get access to them. It's a little bit irritating to hear people pine for the day when most devs were still effectively releasing store exclusives, just without any extra compensation and to a storefront that more people happened to use.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    I know the dev gets a good deal out of it (probably more money than all the lost sales). It's still bad for the consumer (except if the title would never get released otherwise). If a developer chooses to only publish on steam, that's not really the platforms fault, is it? I dislike that some games use steam login/servers as well, but there is a trade-off: those steam servers will probably exist 10 years from now, where a lot of multiplayer games simply shut down their servers and you're out of luck. If Valve open sourced their steam infra, that would alleviate problems with self-hosting those games while allowing the devs ease of use and guaranteed infra. >I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. I won't either, and neither would I install steam, except for inertia (250 games bought).
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. Developers are making an educated choice to take their games exclusive, in exchange for guaranteed revenue. Sometimes that can be make-or-break for a game. You’re acting as if steam doesn’t have exclusive games either - I play Destiny 2 which is only available on Steam (on PC). I would not be surprised that larger games/publishers get negotiated terms on the store which comes with contractual exclusivity clauses.
ehnto 6y ago
One thing that has yet to occur but will one day, is one of these platforms disappearing and then a whole host of game libraries disappearing completely. We've all seen how some tech companies shut down, and supplying downloads and updates for downloads costs a lot of money. There's zero incentive for someone like Epic, Valve or Origin to keep their platforms working if the company goes bust.
isodev 6y ago
Have you tried buying a game from Epic on Windows? The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details, collects all kinds of private information and doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?) Then you go to the Windows Store to buy that candy crush ad that's been sitting in your Start Menu for no reason and oh surprise, they are asking for payment details again! Doesn't sound like a win for consumers to me.
- izacus 6y ago
  Note how you can easily just go to another provider (Steam, GoG) to buy the same content. Something you are forever and ever forbidden from doing if Apples data collection and terms bother you.
  - blibble 6y ago
    for a lot of recent releases you can't, because epic have bought exclusivity they're complaining about monopolies, while attempting to create them
    - nightski 6y ago
      It's not the same situation. I don't like exclusives either, but you still have the option to install games from other stores or publishers on your PC. The Apple situation is far, far worse.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      I don't think "epic bought exclusivity" is quite right. Epic store pays a larger percent of the purchase to developers than any other store. Developers really want you to buy their game on the epic store. That's the real reason epic exclusives exist, developers don't want steam taking their money. Epic gives them an advance as an excuse, but developers would not agree if they didn't want epic store to gain market share.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    Epic purchases exclusivity whenever it can. Some games were kickstarted with the promise of being available on Steam until Epic gave them a sum of money to make them an Epic exclusive, screwing over their backers in the process. In some of those cases, Epic funded refunds to the backers, in others it didn't. In plenty of cases this exclusivity also shut down cross platform support of the games. Fundraisers planned macOS and Linux versions of the games, but when Epic purchased exclusive rights they were effectively made Windows exclusives as well (Epic's store is only available on Windows).
mirthflat83 6y ago
It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user experience. You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  > You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200% No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Like Epic’s Fortnite?
  - doytch 6y ago
    Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store. But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.
      - falcolas 6y ago
        Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google... Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.
skocznymroczny 6y ago
Steam is very close to a monopoly though. Not the store itself, but Steamworks integration. Most game developers use it because it's convenient, but it locks you to Steam. Often releases outside of Steam lose multiplayer support because of that, resulting in a crippled experience.
- JamesSwift 6y ago
  That is a prime example of exactly how it should work. Steam is cornering the market by providing value. Steamworks is exactly the kind of thing that justifies the cut they take.
eertami 6y ago
Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but still out of principle had Psyonix refund me after the switch to Epic. Similarly, I had to ask for a refund for my kickstarter backing of Diabotical, a game I do wish to try one day. I understand why James took the money... but it's upsetting that the cost was exclusivity.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. It turns out that in a surprising number of cases, you don’t have to. Control, Journey, and Beyond Two Souls (as of this writing, it launched with Denuvo) are all completely DRM Free and will run without EGS. You can download them via the open-source “Legendary” unofficial client, or even in a Virtual Machine if you feel so inclined. There are a tiny handful DRM-free Steam games but in my experience, it seems to be way more common on the Epic Game Store, particularly for AAA titles. I’m not sure if this was intentional of a happy accident, but it’s caused me to choose EGS for several titles recently. Mind, you still need to check before buying!
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam. Ditto Journey and BTS. Compare Control with Doom Eternal's pages: https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_Edition/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_E... https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam This statement sounds like the "no sugar added" label that you see slapped on high sugar beverages. Yes, there's no added sugar (or DRM), but there's still sugar. It's completely different to no sugar (or no DRM), as is the case with egs (as in, you can launch the executable without egs running), according to https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control
tadzik_ 6y ago
> Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think Not for Linux gamers who can no longer play Rocket League
nanidin 6y ago
I don’t want to maintain a games collection across several game stores. If a game isn’t available standalone or on Steam, I’m not buying it. I may still play it, but in that case the developer and publisher are not gaining anything - case in point, Untitled Google Game.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  That's fine! What we want is for Epic to be able to compete. We don't think that every consumer should be required to use the Epic store. If the multi store model doesn't work for you, voting with your dollars to that effect is fine.

tpxl 6y ago

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

viraptor 6y ago
> they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it ever again. I even bought similar games which are available on platforms I already have instead.
- tpxl 6y ago
  In the case of Epic games, they shovel money their way with a _biiig_ shovel, even for free games. I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Is installing another store really so burdensome? It costs nothing but a few minutes of time. GOG Galaxy can even help consolidate them.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    Yet another US service to slurp my data and give it to the NSA.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Sadly the only alternative is to buy used, disc copies. Digital collections certainly have privacy tradeoffs. Though I'm quite happy with many of the upsides: cross-play, automatic cloud save, (sometimes) cross-save, no disc swapping, fewer things to clutter my living space.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Until epic supports proton, yes. It requires a whole new OS. But I was also thinking in terms of actual platforms like "Xbox only for N months"
- doikor 6y ago
  Epic pays the developer for X units sold before selling anything. Basically guarantee the developer to make at least that much sold. The developer still stands to make extra buck if the game sells really well (when selling more then those X units Epic paid them beforehand) This is great for smaller devs as you basically have 0 advertising budget and rely on worth of mouth for your game to be a success or not. So you can take guaranteed money and pay yourself (and your employees) or take the gamble and hope your game sells well. Also Epic takes smaller cut then Valve does on Steam. (12% vs 30%) Also these exclusives to Epic are timed. So after a couple months the developer is free to publish their game on Steam/GOG/Windows Store/whatever PC platform (Epic store exclusivity does not apply for consoles)
deif 6y ago
The never ending cycle of monopoly vs convenience. Let us forget the fact that exclusives make the game devs more money than they would've got otherwise and the games are eventually released on steam anyway.
- tpxl 6y ago
  Exclusives do nothing for convenience, and if the game gets released a year or two later, it's no longer "next-gen" or whatever.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Are any of their thirty party, exclusivity deals permanent? If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck. Having another store is a low barrier to entry. Imagine there was only one store for groceries in your whole state. And when you go to court a chorus rebukes you for not selling your produce there instead of opening another nearby.
- tpxl 6y ago
  >If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Yes, there is nuance that I left out of my post. I agree with you here. >If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck. If you want to play any Epic games without Epic game store, you're out of luck as well. I have no problem with another store, I have problems with another store having exclusives which do not benefit the consumer in any way (directly).
kgabis 6y ago
Surely developers don't have to release games as epic exclusives if they don't want to. Also, epic's cut is much lower that valve's (12% vs 30%). I'd rather buy games on epic so that more money goes to creators.
danShumway 6y ago
> and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I don't think the exclusives are good for users, but from a developer perspective this is an oversimplification. Epic is essentially pre-funding games. If you're an indie dev who's been working on a game for 3-5 years, literally everything you have is riding on that release going well. It's incredibly stressful. So suddenly this billionaire shows up and says, "no content changes, no interference, we'll just guarantee up front that your game is profitable. We'll just give you the money to justify the last 5 years of your life, and after 6-12 months you can sell wherever." Of course developers take that. Suddenly you have the freedom to be experimental, to make games that are personal and niche without worrying about going broke. There's a real sense in which PC exclusives are bad for the industry overall, I don't like the direction the market is headed. But from a developer perspective Epic has been pretty objectively good for indie games. The lost revenue from not being on Steam means nothing if Epic is willing to fund your game upfront. Think about how much peace of mind that means as a developer, to not have everything riding on a single launch, to not have to spend months leading up to launch getting sick worrying about what's going to happen. And also let's be real, from a user perspective we had Steam exclusives, even if Valve didn't directly require them. I buy my games exclusively DRM free, I won't use Steam or Epic. The number of games that refuse to release outside of Steam, or who tie their multiplayer and modding communities to Steam's servers have been a pain in my side for over a decade. There are games on GoG that are missing patches and that will never get multiplayer, because Steam just happened to release frameworks encouraging devs to make themselves utterly dependent on Valve's infrastructure. I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. But at least a game that's exclusive to Epic games store eventually becomes non-exclusive -- on average, I'll end up getting access to it later. Most of the games that get released exclusively on Steam never get ported off and I never get access to them. It's a little bit irritating to hear people pine for the day when most devs were still effectively releasing store exclusives, just without any extra compensation and to a storefront that more people happened to use.
- tpxl 6y ago
  I know the dev gets a good deal out of it (probably more money than all the lost sales). It's still bad for the consumer (except if the title would never get released otherwise). If a developer chooses to only publish on steam, that's not really the platforms fault, is it? I dislike that some games use steam login/servers as well, but there is a trade-off: those steam servers will probably exist 10 years from now, where a lot of multiplayer games simply shut down their servers and you're out of luck. If Valve open sourced their steam infra, that would alleviate problems with self-hosting those games while allowing the devs ease of use and guaranteed infra. >I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. I won't either, and neither would I install steam, except for inertia (250 games bought).
madeofpalk 6y ago
> but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. Developers are making an educated choice to take their games exclusive, in exchange for guaranteed revenue. Sometimes that can be make-or-break for a game. You’re acting as if steam doesn’t have exclusive games either - I play Destiny 2 which is only available on Steam (on PC). I would not be surprised that larger games/publishers get negotiated terms on the store which comes with contractual exclusivity clauses.

ehnto 6y ago

One thing that has yet to occur but will one day, is one of these platforms disappearing and then a whole host of game libraries disappearing completely. We've all seen how some tech companies shut down, and supplying downloads and updates for downloads costs a lot of money. There's zero incentive for someone like Epic, Valve or Origin to keep their platforms working if the company goes bust.

isodev 6y ago

Have you tried buying a game from Epic on Windows? The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details, collects all kinds of private information and doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?) Then you go to the Windows Store to buy that candy crush ad that's been sitting in your Start Menu for no reason and oh surprise, they are asking for payment details again! Doesn't sound like a win for consumers to me.

izacus 6y ago
Note how you can easily just go to another provider (Steam, GoG) to buy the same content. Something you are forever and ever forbidden from doing if Apples data collection and terms bother you.
- blibble 6y ago
  for a lot of recent releases you can't, because epic have bought exclusivity they're complaining about monopolies, while attempting to create them
  - nightski 6y ago
    It's not the same situation. I don't like exclusives either, but you still have the option to install games from other stores or publishers on your PC. The Apple situation is far, far worse.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    I don't think "epic bought exclusivity" is quite right. Epic store pays a larger percent of the purchase to developers than any other store. Developers really want you to buy their game on the epic store. That's the real reason epic exclusives exist, developers don't want steam taking their money. Epic gives them an advance as an excuse, but developers would not agree if they didn't want epic store to gain market share.
- input_sh 6y ago
  Epic purchases exclusivity whenever it can. Some games were kickstarted with the promise of being available on Steam until Epic gave them a sum of money to make them an Epic exclusive, screwing over their backers in the process. In some of those cases, Epic funded refunds to the backers, in others it didn't. In plenty of cases this exclusivity also shut down cross platform support of the games. Fundraisers planned macOS and Linux versions of the games, but when Epic purchased exclusive rights they were effectively made Windows exclusives as well (Epic's store is only available on Windows).

mirthflat83 6y ago

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user experience. You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200% No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.
- pb7 6y ago
  Like Epic’s Fortnite?
- doytch 6y ago
  Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store. But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google... Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.

skocznymroczny 6y ago

Steam is very close to a monopoly though. Not the store itself, but Steamworks integration. Most game developers use it because it's convenient, but it locks you to Steam. Often releases outside of Steam lose multiplayer support because of that, resulting in a crippled experience.

JamesSwift 6y ago
That is a prime example of exactly how it should work. Steam is cornering the market by providing value. Steamworks is exactly the kind of thing that justifies the cut they take.

eertami 6y ago

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but still out of principle had Psyonix refund me after the switch to Epic. Similarly, I had to ask for a refund for my kickstarter backing of Diabotical, a game I do wish to try one day. I understand why James took the money... but it's upsetting that the cost was exclusivity.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. It turns out that in a surprising number of cases, you don’t have to. Control, Journey, and Beyond Two Souls (as of this writing, it launched with Denuvo) are all completely DRM Free and will run without EGS. You can download them via the open-source “Legendary” unofficial client, or even in a Virtual Machine if you feel so inclined. There are a tiny handful DRM-free Steam games but in my experience, it seems to be way more common on the Epic Game Store, particularly for AAA titles. I’m not sure if this was intentional of a happy accident, but it’s caused me to choose EGS for several titles recently. Mind, you still need to check before buying!
- falcolas 6y ago
  Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam. Ditto Journey and BTS. Compare Control with Doom Eternal's pages: https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_Edition/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_E... https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam This statement sounds like the "no sugar added" label that you see slapped on high sugar beverages. Yes, there's no added sugar (or DRM), but there's still sugar. It's completely different to no sugar (or no DRM), as is the case with egs (as in, you can launch the executable without egs running), according to https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control

tadzik_ 6y ago

> Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think Not for Linux gamers who can no longer play Rocket League

nanidin 6y ago

I don’t want to maintain a games collection across several game stores. If a game isn’t available standalone or on Steam, I’m not buying it. I may still play it, but in that case the developer and publisher are not gaining anything - case in point, Untitled Google Game.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
That's fine! What we want is for Epic to be able to compete. We don't think that every consumer should be required to use the Epic store. If the multi store model doesn't work for you, voting with your dollars to that effect is fine.