7 ms·

It's unfortunate that Epic is never given the goodwill they deserve for this fight. (I still hate their exclusivity deals, but I don't let that poison other asp

It's unfortunate that Epic is never given the goodwill they deserve for this fight. (I still hate their exclusivity deals, but I don't let that poison other aspects)

sonicanatidae 3y ago
Why not? Assholes are still assholes, even when they do something for everyone else, once.
RockRobotRock 3y ago
Exclusivity deals suck but I would redirect more of your anger to greedy storefronts like Steam which take 30% (25% after $10,000,000 in sales) of revenue compared to Epic's 12%.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  Yeah it's worth nothing that Steam is allegedly responsible for the default 30% cut number app stores get, by sort of arbitrarily picking it, and that Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly that has so much of a vice grip on the PC gaming space that when you go outside of it, tons of people whine and cry because everything is expected to just use the thing that takes a third of all revenue. Nobody likes buying exclusives, but it's basically the only way to break into a market under such heavy capture.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Steam adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install. Setting up multiplayer for indie games before steam was always annoying, with steam it is very easy and gives a uniform way to play with friends for every game I own there. There are many such quality of life things from steam, to me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam.
    - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      > adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install Sure, and that goes into ways it should be able to compete well with other stores, not just be "the default". > a uniform way Also known as "a complete monopoly", and this is exactly the mountain that any competitor has to completely break. Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed. Only once both stores are somewhat similarly available to you, can Epic really compete on the price and features aspects. EDIT: The other thing that's important to realize about monopolies is that nothing remains the same forever. You might like Steam today, and feel we should all just let Steam be a monopoly because they're "good", but what happens when Gabe retires and a private equity firm comes in? The only difference between Steam and Ticketmaster is that Steam hasn't tried to maximize value extraction yet.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed. The epic store program is trash though, it is extremely slow and clunky and power hungry and lack most of the features I have in steam. They do have multiplayer integration which is nice, I have played games with friends there that were free, but the store being such a bad program is the main reason I still buy games on steam. Steam isn't some super well made program, if epic store was a better program I would prefer buying games there for that reason. But as is epic store is way worse in almost every way, it takes seconds just to view a page, the epic store is much nicer to browse as a web page than in their dedicated program but I can't play the games from their web page. If they fixed that then I don't think people would hate buying games on epic store, but until then I am pretty sure the main reason people still prefer steam is that epic store is garbage. Not sure why they don't just fix the app instead of spending so much money on exclusives or free games.
    - rezonant 3y ago
      > me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam. Unfortunately this is not an option. Valve's Steam agreements forbid publishers from charging less money on competing platforms. https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:text=To%20help%20maintain%20its%20monopoly,less%20than%20the%20game%20publishers https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex... (Others have pointed out that this fact is contested, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225)
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    The important thing is that Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices, and they provide a vastly larger infrastructure than Epic Games, going far and beyond your typical storefront and providing a rich, unparalleled gaming experience. I do think that their price control for multi-platform launches is in very bad taste, but unfortunately this is commonly found in retail. I buy from GOG sometimes, because they also have a unique value proposition with their anti-DRM stance. Other than that, Steam simply provides the best service by leagues, and it's very take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to the 30% cut. I personally would love for them to reduce their cut, I think 30% is massive. It is worth pointing out that the 30% cut is well-established in many industries outside of gaming, such as franchising. But it's also fairly standard within gaming. - Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy and Wal-Mart take a 30% cut. - PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo each take 30% from their console stores. - GOG, Microsoft take 30% from their game stores. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
    - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      > Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices Yet. Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. The problem with monopoly capture is once a company has it, it can choose to abuse it at any time in the future. And even if you have complete faith in Valve's current leadership, those people get old and die or retire, and the next guys may not run things the same way. > But it's also fairly standard within gaming. One of the things uncovered by these lawsuits is largely than everyone settled on the 30% cut because Steam picked it and got away with it. We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        > Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. I would expect a bunch of bright, freshly-laid-off engineers would get together and try to seriously compete either through a single platform offering, or a system of integrated services. I'd love to see Valve's platform advantages a little more democratized; but you can't deny the level of engineering that goes into their products. SteamVR, Steam Play, streaming, Steam Deck, Proton, it goes on and on. > We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it. No more than we blame anyone else who followed suit, as a gain, Valve chose a number that was already massively standardized in many industries. If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin.
  - timlatim 3y ago
    Steam is also the reason Linux desktop is becoming more and more viable for everyday use (yes, including gaming) through Valve's involvement with Wine, Mesa, and other parts of the stack. As a consumer, I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming. Not to mention that Steam has tons of quality of life features that EGS still lacks: written reviews, discussions, gifts, I could go on and on... There are many reasons people prefer Steam besides its popularity. Epic had so much time and resources to improve their storefront and expand platform support, but they just don't seem to care.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      > I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming Valve is practically the ones that mainstreamed lootbox gaming with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, and Dota 2. When others like Rocket League have removed lootboxes from their games altogether, Valve don't bother. The lootbox "winnings" being tradable and having an item marketplace (in which they take a cut of all transactions), makes it even more egregious to me.
    - KptMarchewa 3y ago
      Valve was the originator of loot boxes...
      - higeyuki 3y ago
        MapleStory Introduced Loot Boxes and Randomized Rewards
  - guitarbill 3y ago
    > Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly Origin, U-Play, EA Play, etc. Blizzard titles are not on Steam. Microsoft Game Pass, and before that Games for Windows Live. Some physical releases require Steam, many do not. GOG. Edit: itch.io. So it's easily disproven. The other option sucking (e.g. not allowing reviews) does not a monopoly make.
    - Novosell 3y ago
      Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 are both on Steam actually.
- jacklbk 3y ago
  Steam (and every other storefronts) has been taking 30% since its beginning. When did it become "greedy"? Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam? Is EGS making profits? Is 12% really sustainable?
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    EGS never gave us proton, steam deck, steam workshop, early access, steam link or controllers, big picture, etc. steam and valve in general has great VR support and lots of r&d in general. No hate nor shade towards epic but man valve kills it. Best video game company (studio or platform) by far for several decades now imo.
    - RockRobotRock 3y ago
      Steam is undeniably the best platform for PC gamers, but I can't help but feel bad for game devs who get squeezed and don't have good alternatives.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        Are they getting "squeezed" by Steam? That would imply there is pressure coming from Valve, but the pressure to use Steam is coming from customers. I'd say that Steam is a great service that customers love and demand that game developers provide, and the 30% fee is the price of that service. I know that in my own case I've bought games on Steam that were available cheaper elsewhere, or even given away for free on EGS. And the attempts at creating alternatives have all been unable to create a good alternative. (Except perhaps Good Old Games, which stands out by being DRM-free.)
        rezonant 3y ago
        Well they're getting squeezed by the 30%, but also that the act of participating in the Steam market means they cannot sell their game for less money (to incentivize a better cut for themselves) off platform, since Steam doesn't allow you to do that, at least to the best of my current understanding. I've posted this elsewhere and had one user pretty upset that I had posted false statements, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet (context is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38624916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38624916)
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  Steam is an interesting instance of near-monopoly store fronts. Unlike the App Store, which Apple forces upon users of their devices, or the Play Store, which is a default on most Androids and Google strongly pressures both devs and users into relying while technically allowing for competition, Stream is a third-part and cross-platform store/application managers which users go out of their way to install. So while being the default (or only) store is clearly valuable, it is not the only path to a dominant position. As a Steam user, I find myself groaning if a game is exclusive to Epic or Battle.net (or whatever it's called now), but don't mind if I have to buy a game from GOG or a dedicated site put up by the developer. So the actual complaint isn't that the game isn't on Steam, it's that I don't want to have to install and use some shitty game launcher. I don't want it on my computer. People felt like this about Steam initially too, and it certainly has its shitty parts still, but it actually adds sone value over a raw installer exe, unlike some other stores. It's all about the user experience. Minimal steps between them and the product. Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). I think I'll pass.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    The thing about game launchers like the Epic Game Store is that they tend to be ungainly, clunky built-by-lowest-bidder beasts that aren’t pleasant to interact with. Somehow they’re never high quality, polished products despite being profit centers. That’s where much of that feeling of loathing comes from. Steam certainly isn’t faultless here but it’s less clunky and and adds value with features like shoring up of Windows’ abysmal controller support, which makes a big difference. If competitors want people to want to install their stores, they need to be treating the project with respect and hiring on a team of full time well compensated high quality engineers to build it. Be a VS Code, not an MS Teams.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    > Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). That same logic could apply to Steam if you don't have it installed and have Epic installed. You're basically describing first-movers advantage. Personally I don't see that as a reason not to try others. Nor as a reason to give Steam a monopoly (on my game purchases).
- ginko 3y ago
  Considering what Steam has been done for linux gaming Valve employees could be kicking puppies for all I care.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Personally I think exclusivity is much worse. It has the potential to poison the entire video game market in the same way the video stream market is poisoned.
- Timshel 3y ago
  Don't know there is a difference between greed and anti competitive practices. Last I check Steam : - does not control the OS and prevent you to install app outside of it (even on steamdeck) - d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶(̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶"̶P̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶R̶u̶l̶e̶"̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶a̶m̶ ̶k̶e̶y̶s̶)̶.̶ They do enforce their cut on in-app purchase but since you can sideload app I see it at less of an issue (suppose all games would become free with a 40e in game purchase otherwise). Edit: on the price parity while the policy might be listed as applying only for Steam key it's possible they engage in anti competitive practice since : - http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-ac... - https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-to-attend-in-person-antitrust-lawsuit-deposition https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-t...
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
Good will? The reason they want Apple and Google out of the way isn’t just because of the 30% fee but also because it prevents Epic from collecting information and utilizing dark patterns to gouge children. https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1849910901 https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...
- mcfedr 3y ago
  Your joking right? Nothing apple does is preventing any of that
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    In fact, the FTC sued Apple for the exact same thing (microtransaction for children). The only difference is that Epic immediately took remediation steps and shared them publicly with other stores when they were sued.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    Apple managed to screw up Facebook’s data gathering. So they are definitely hurt Epic’s ability to do so too. Epic having its own store front means they can use dark patterns there too. Apple is limiting the worst of these companies’ behaviors.
mcfedr 3y ago
As an app developer, I'm massively behind them

It's unfortunate that Epic is never given the goodwill they deserve for this fight. (I still hate their exclusivity deals, but I don't let that poison other aspects)

sonicanatidae 3y ago

Why not? Assholes are still assholes, even when they do something for everyone else, once.

RockRobotRock 3y ago

Exclusivity deals suck but I would redirect more of your anger to greedy storefronts like Steam which take 30% (25% after $10,000,000 in sales) of revenue compared to Epic's 12%.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Yeah it's worth nothing that Steam is allegedly responsible for the default 30% cut number app stores get, by sort of arbitrarily picking it, and that Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly that has so much of a vice grip on the PC gaming space that when you go outside of it, tons of people whine and cry because everything is expected to just use the thing that takes a third of all revenue. Nobody likes buying exclusives, but it's basically the only way to break into a market under such heavy capture.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Steam adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install. Setting up multiplayer for indie games before steam was always annoying, with steam it is very easy and gives a uniform way to play with friends for every game I own there. There are many such quality of life things from steam, to me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam.
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    > adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install Sure, and that goes into ways it should be able to compete well with other stores, not just be "the default". > a uniform way Also known as "a complete monopoly", and this is exactly the mountain that any competitor has to completely break. Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed. Only once both stores are somewhat similarly available to you, can Epic really compete on the price and features aspects. EDIT: The other thing that's important to realize about monopolies is that nothing remains the same forever. You might like Steam today, and feel we should all just let Steam be a monopoly because they're "good", but what happens when Gabe retires and a private equity firm comes in? The only difference between Steam and Ticketmaster is that Steam hasn't tried to maximize value extraction yet.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed. The epic store program is trash though, it is extremely slow and clunky and power hungry and lack most of the features I have in steam. They do have multiplayer integration which is nice, I have played games with friends there that were free, but the store being such a bad program is the main reason I still buy games on steam. Steam isn't some super well made program, if epic store was a better program I would prefer buying games there for that reason. But as is epic store is way worse in almost every way, it takes seconds just to view a page, the epic store is much nicer to browse as a web page than in their dedicated program but I can't play the games from their web page. If they fixed that then I don't think people would hate buying games on epic store, but until then I am pretty sure the main reason people still prefer steam is that epic store is garbage. Not sure why they don't just fix the app instead of spending so much money on exclusives or free games.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    > me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam. Unfortunately this is not an option. Valve's Steam agreements forbid publishers from charging less money on competing platforms. https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:text=To%20help%20maintain%20its%20monopoly,less%20than%20the%20game%20publishers https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex... (Others have pointed out that this fact is contested, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225)
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  The important thing is that Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices, and they provide a vastly larger infrastructure than Epic Games, going far and beyond your typical storefront and providing a rich, unparalleled gaming experience. I do think that their price control for multi-platform launches is in very bad taste, but unfortunately this is commonly found in retail. I buy from GOG sometimes, because they also have a unique value proposition with their anti-DRM stance. Other than that, Steam simply provides the best service by leagues, and it's very take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to the 30% cut. I personally would love for them to reduce their cut, I think 30% is massive. It is worth pointing out that the 30% cut is well-established in many industries outside of gaming, such as franchising. But it's also fairly standard within gaming. - Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy and Wal-Mart take a 30% cut. - PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo each take 30% from their console stores. - GOG, Microsoft take 30% from their game stores. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    > Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices Yet. Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. The problem with monopoly capture is once a company has it, it can choose to abuse it at any time in the future. And even if you have complete faith in Valve's current leadership, those people get old and die or retire, and the next guys may not run things the same way. > But it's also fairly standard within gaming. One of the things uncovered by these lawsuits is largely than everyone settled on the 30% cut because Steam picked it and got away with it. We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. I would expect a bunch of bright, freshly-laid-off engineers would get together and try to seriously compete either through a single platform offering, or a system of integrated services. I'd love to see Valve's platform advantages a little more democratized; but you can't deny the level of engineering that goes into their products. SteamVR, Steam Play, streaming, Steam Deck, Proton, it goes on and on. > We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it. No more than we blame anyone else who followed suit, as a gain, Valve chose a number that was already massively standardized in many industries. If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin.
- timlatim 3y ago
  Steam is also the reason Linux desktop is becoming more and more viable for everyday use (yes, including gaming) through Valve's involvement with Wine, Mesa, and other parts of the stack. As a consumer, I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming. Not to mention that Steam has tons of quality of life features that EGS still lacks: written reviews, discussions, gifts, I could go on and on... There are many reasons people prefer Steam besides its popularity. Epic had so much time and resources to improve their storefront and expand platform support, but they just don't seem to care.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    > I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming Valve is practically the ones that mainstreamed lootbox gaming with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, and Dota 2. When others like Rocket League have removed lootboxes from their games altogether, Valve don't bother. The lootbox "winnings" being tradable and having an item marketplace (in which they take a cut of all transactions), makes it even more egregious to me.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    Valve was the originator of loot boxes...
    - higeyuki 3y ago
      MapleStory Introduced Loot Boxes and Randomized Rewards
- guitarbill 3y ago
  > Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly Origin, U-Play, EA Play, etc. Blizzard titles are not on Steam. Microsoft Game Pass, and before that Games for Windows Live. Some physical releases require Steam, many do not. GOG. Edit: itch.io. So it's easily disproven. The other option sucking (e.g. not allowing reviews) does not a monopoly make.
  - Novosell 3y ago
    Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 are both on Steam actually.
jacklbk 3y ago
Steam (and every other storefronts) has been taking 30% since its beginning. When did it become "greedy"? Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam? Is EGS making profits? Is 12% really sustainable?
- hughesjj 3y ago
  EGS never gave us proton, steam deck, steam workshop, early access, steam link or controllers, big picture, etc. steam and valve in general has great VR support and lots of r&d in general. No hate nor shade towards epic but man valve kills it. Best video game company (studio or platform) by far for several decades now imo.
  - RockRobotRock 3y ago
    Steam is undeniably the best platform for PC gamers, but I can't help but feel bad for game devs who get squeezed and don't have good alternatives.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Are they getting "squeezed" by Steam? That would imply there is pressure coming from Valve, but the pressure to use Steam is coming from customers. I'd say that Steam is a great service that customers love and demand that game developers provide, and the 30% fee is the price of that service. I know that in my own case I've bought games on Steam that were available cheaper elsewhere, or even given away for free on EGS. And the attempts at creating alternatives have all been unable to create a good alternative. (Except perhaps Good Old Games, which stands out by being DRM-free.)
      - rezonant 3y ago
        Well they're getting squeezed by the 30%, but also that the act of participating in the Steam market means they cannot sell their game for less money (to incentivize a better cut for themselves) off platform, since Steam doesn't allow you to do that, at least to the best of my current understanding. I've posted this elsewhere and had one user pretty upset that I had posted false statements, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet (context is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38624916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38624916)
idle_zealot 3y ago
Steam is an interesting instance of near-monopoly store fronts. Unlike the App Store, which Apple forces upon users of their devices, or the Play Store, which is a default on most Androids and Google strongly pressures both devs and users into relying while technically allowing for competition, Stream is a third-part and cross-platform store/application managers which users go out of their way to install. So while being the default (or only) store is clearly valuable, it is not the only path to a dominant position. As a Steam user, I find myself groaning if a game is exclusive to Epic or Battle.net (or whatever it's called now), but don't mind if I have to buy a game from GOG or a dedicated site put up by the developer. So the actual complaint isn't that the game isn't on Steam, it's that I don't want to have to install and use some shitty game launcher. I don't want it on my computer. People felt like this about Steam initially too, and it certainly has its shitty parts still, but it actually adds sone value over a raw installer exe, unlike some other stores. It's all about the user experience. Minimal steps between them and the product. Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). I think I'll pass.
- jwells89 3y ago
  The thing about game launchers like the Epic Game Store is that they tend to be ungainly, clunky built-by-lowest-bidder beasts that aren’t pleasant to interact with. Somehow they’re never high quality, polished products despite being profit centers. That’s where much of that feeling of loathing comes from. Steam certainly isn’t faultless here but it’s less clunky and and adds value with features like shoring up of Windows’ abysmal controller support, which makes a big difference. If competitors want people to want to install their stores, they need to be treating the project with respect and hiring on a team of full time well compensated high quality engineers to build it. Be a VS Code, not an MS Teams.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  > Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). That same logic could apply to Steam if you don't have it installed and have Epic installed. You're basically describing first-movers advantage. Personally I don't see that as a reason not to try others. Nor as a reason to give Steam a monopoly (on my game purchases).
ginko 3y ago
Considering what Steam has been done for linux gaming Valve employees could be kicking puppies for all I care.
rowanG077 3y ago
Personally I think exclusivity is much worse. It has the potential to poison the entire video game market in the same way the video stream market is poisoned.
Timshel 3y ago
Don't know there is a difference between greed and anti competitive practices. Last I check Steam : - does not control the OS and prevent you to install app outside of it (even on steamdeck) - d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶(̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶"̶P̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶R̶u̶l̶e̶"̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶a̶m̶ ̶k̶e̶y̶s̶)̶.̶ They do enforce their cut on in-app purchase but since you can sideload app I see it at less of an issue (suppose all games would become free with a 40e in game purchase otherwise). Edit: on the price parity while the policy might be listed as applying only for Steam key it's possible they engage in anti competitive practice since : - http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-ac... - https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-to-attend-in-person-antitrust-lawsuit-deposition https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-t...

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

Good will? The reason they want Apple and Google out of the way isn’t just because of the 30% fee but also because it prevents Epic from collecting information and utilizing dark patterns to gouge children. https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1849910901 https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...

mcfedr 3y ago
Your joking right? Nothing apple does is preventing any of that
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  In fact, the FTC sued Apple for the exact same thing (microtransaction for children). The only difference is that Epic immediately took remediation steps and shared them publicly with other stores when they were sued.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  Apple managed to screw up Facebook’s data gathering. So they are definitely hurt Epic’s ability to do so too. Epic having its own store front means they can use dark patterns there too. Apple is limiting the worst of these companies’ behaviors.

mcfedr 3y ago

As an app developer, I'm massively behind them