Epic Games Spent At Least $1 Billion Securing Exclusives for EGS

[btarunr]

The ongoing Epic Games vs. Apple dispute over Fortnite on the App Store platform has sprung up some surprising facts. Apparently, Epic has spent a massive $1 billion since September 2019, getting game studios to launch their titles exclusively on the Epic Games Store (EGS). It This sledgehammer fashion of taking market-share away from Steam rides almost entirely on investor money, and the firm's next $1 billion funding round is already underway. Epic aims to have as many as 52 exclusives on its storefront in 2021. The meteoric rise of EGS dates back to late 2018, when it gave away fairly new AAA games for free, a move that cost it $11 million, but generated a large number of new sign-ups to the platform. From here, the store rode on offering game studios a greater revenue share of games sold than Steam does, and additional incentives for exclusives.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[watzupken]

To me exclusives whether timed or unlimited is a form of anti competition since there is really nothing stopping the game to be on any platforms, i,e, Steam, GOG, MS Store, etc. In fact, I may potentially find them cheaper on another platform if the game is available on all platforms. So while EPIC is crying foul over other anti competitive measures by others, they are not exactly guilt free.

 

[64K]

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games. The vast majority just get the free games and leave. From what I've heard most people don't even play the free games. Some already own the free games from other services but get them for free on EGS anyway.

All in all I don't think that EGS has worked out as well as Tim Sweeney planned.

 

[employee24601]

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games. The vast majority just get the free games and leave. From what I've heard most people don't even play the free games. Some already own the free games from other services but get them for free on EGS anyway.

All in all I don't think that EGS has worked out as well as Tim Sweeney planned.

This post couldn't describe me more if it had my name in it.

As far as Epic exclusives are concerned, I was happy to wait the 12 months for Control, before picking up the Ultimate Edition with all the DLC for like 50% off when it came to Steam. Other games like Zombie Army 4 however, dropping onto Steam at full price after a year in the wild on Epic? Get outta here!

 

[halodies]

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games. The vast majority just get the free games and leave. From what I've heard most people don't even play the free games. Some already own the free games from other services but get them for free on EGS anyway.

All in all I don't think that EGS has worked out as well as Tim Sweeney planned.

That is what I'm doing since they start providing free games, add them and never touch them!!! Epic Fail

 

[NRANM]

As a neutral party, people's behavior regarding Epic is interesting to observe.

Epic provides free games but so many people say that such gestures are not enough to win them over (regardless if they actually get the free games or not).
Epic sells timed exclusives but people say that it would also not convince them to purchase there, and some go further to say it is anti-competitive (albeit it with no explanation whatsoever as to how it is anti-competitive, how exactly it harms gamers/users, etc.).
If Epic did not provide free games and/or exclusives, people would say there is no reason for anyone to go to Epic because Steam already exists.
If Epic provided lower prices than Steam, people would most likely still say it isn't enough to purchase there because Steam exists, and it would be worth the discount to fragment their library, or something like that.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

 

[1d10t]

As a neutral party, people's behavior regarding Epic is interesting to observe.

Epic provides free games but so many people say that such gestures are not enough to win them over (regardless if they actually get the free games or not).
Epic sells timed exclusives but people say that it would also not convince them to purchase there, and some go further to say it is anti-competitive (albeit it with no explanation whatsoever as to how it is anti-competitive, how exactly it harms gamers/users, etc.).
If Epic did not provide free games and/or exclusives, people would say there is no reason for anyone to go to Epic because Steam already exists.
If Epic provided lower prices than Steam, people would most likely still say it isn't enough to purchase there because Steam exists, and it would be worth the discount to fragment their library, or something like that.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

Maybe because some undisclosed sentiment, you know like security, spying on you, bleh...
For me free beer is free beer, I don't care if it's labeled someone in particular.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games. The vast majority just get the free games and leave. From what I've heard most people don't even play the free games. Some already own the free games from other services but get them for free on EGS anyway.

All in all I don't think that EGS has worked out as well as Tim Sweeney planned.

Agreed. I saw this as well and found it hilarious. Epic has created a platform of free loaders. Rather than spend that $1B on making Epic an actual competitive and good storefront that people WANT to use, they spend it on anti consumer strategies to try to force people into their store and since they went that route I've never created an account at Epic and never will. They've had one game that's gone exclusive to their storefront that I wanted to play, so I just put my eye patch on for that one.

As a neutral party, people's behavior regarding Epic is interesting to observe.

Epic provides free games but so many people say that such gestures are not enough to win them over (regardless if they actually get the free games or not).
Epic sells timed exclusives but people say that it would also not convince them to purchase there, and some go further to say it is anti-competitive (albeit it with no explanation whatsoever as to how it is anti-competitive, how exactly it harms gamers/users, etc.).
If Epic did not provide free games and/or exclusives, people would say there is no reason for anyone to go to Epic because Steam already exists.
If Epic provided lower prices than Steam, people would most likely still say it isn't enough to purchase there because Steam exists, and it would be worth the discount to fragment their library, or something like that.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

You know, in my case a new storefront just has to do (3) things to get me to give them a shot - right now I do business at GOG and Steam. So if a 3rd store wants to come in and give me a pitch, here's what they have to do:

1.) Accept Paypal as a payment method
2.) Offer offline installers (to match GOG)
3.) Offer a better refund policy than both GOG & Steam

Do those 3 things and I would have absolutely given Epic or any other company a shot to earn my business long-term. But there's nothing at Epic that would make me even remotely interested in using it. It's a downgrade in most respects compared to Steam and / or GOG and the anti consumer practice of exclusives to try to force me into the storefront against my will only sealed the deal to ensure I never do business there under any circumstances.

 

[NRANM]

It's a downgrade in most respects compared to Steam and / or GOG and the anti consumer practice of exclusives to try to force me into the storefront against my will only sealed the deal to ensure I never do business there under any circumstances.

There is this mentioning of Epic being anti-consumer with no explanation whatsoever.

How about this... Actually Steam is anti-consumer.

 

[watzupken]

As a neutral party, people's behavior regarding Epic is interesting to observe.

Epic provides free games but so many people say that such gestures are not enough to win them over (regardless if they actually get the free games or not).
Epic sells timed exclusives but people say that it would also not convince them to purchase there, and some go further to say it is anti-competitive (albeit it with no explanation whatsoever as to how it is anti-competitive, how exactly it harms gamers/users, etc.).
If Epic did not provide free games and/or exclusives, people would say there is no reason for anyone to go to Epic because Steam already exists.
If Epic provided lower prices than Steam, people would most likely still say it isn't enough to purchase there because Steam exists, and it would be worth the discount to fragment their library, or something like that.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

As I mentioned in my first post, do you really think time exclusives are meant to play fair, especially when you consider there is actually nothing stopping the same game from being distributed via other platforms? Sure EPIC paid for the game/ software to be exclusive to their store, but in doing so, say 6 months down the road and you want to buy the game, how would you know you are getting the best deal since there is only 1 store selling it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with EPIC throwing money and giving games away. Hey, that's a good thing for us as consumers since we get the free game. It is just detrimental to the company because while it lures people to the store, I am not sure how much actual sale they are actually pulling in. From the numbers shared, not much. And as you can tell, people do log in, but just to download whatever that is free and then out they go. EPIC store may give games across all sorts of genre, but that does not mean its something people really want to play. So again, the ability to sway people from say Steam is not going to be strong, where you actually paid money for games that one may be interested and potentially want to play it. Again, I am not against their "generousity" of giving unlimited free games since it doesn't bother me and I have not logged into my EPIC store account for a very long time.

Lower prices is always welcomed. I've gotten some games from EPIC store because of that. However Steam has been around for a very long time, and chances is that if you are a gamer, you would have amassed a sizeable library of games that you paid for, preloved or still loving those games there. So logically, you will still go back to the store that contains most of your games most of the time, instead of a library from another game store that contains a mish mash of games that I may not want to play, but just download for the fun of it since its free. I feel this is logical and supported by the low revenue numbers reveal from EPIC sales store.

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games. The vast majority just get the free games and leave. From what I've heard most people don't even play the free games. Some already own the free games from other services but get them for free on EGS anyway.

All in all I don't think that EGS has worked out as well as Tim Sweeney planned.

I feel the numbers revealed so far says it all. In fact, I feel that 7% who bought something may not be buying a new game, but one that is older and thus, cheaper. The formula to throw money for free games and timed exclusives are not likely to move the sales needle much. This has been going since they started operating the store in Dec 2018 which is 2.5 years now. While I agree that EPIC store actually did very well (in terms of people visiting the store) for a 2.5 year old establishment, but actual sales obviously don't match up with number of people active on their platform. I feel unless its a game title that is exclusive to EPIC store, I suspect most people will buy it from the likes of Steam. For me, I will check out the game on either Steam or MS store first.

Overall, I feel EGS achieved the objective of getting people to patronize the store on a regular basis. The free games also somewhat helped build up people's game library there, though a lot of the free games don't interest me, and likely the same for others. For me, I stopped going to the store to get the free games after getting a few titles. So despite all these, there is really very little holding power to keep people actually making EGS their main gaming platform. Unfortunately, Steam had a massive first mover advantage that their grip on the industry cannot easily be undone, even with brute force like this.

There is this mentioning of Epic being anti-consumer with no explanation whatsoever.

How about this... Actually Steam is anti-consumer.

Objectively, I can safely tell you that none of them are for consumers. Everything these corporates do are for the profit and $$$. I hope you don't really think that EGS will continue to give you great free games and offer games at cheap prices after they toppled Steam? Even assuming they win the anti competitive lawsuit against Apple, do you think they won't start increasing prices at some point? They have investors that they need to appease to keep investment and their role secure.

 

[medi01]

is a form of anti competition

EPIC store competing with Valve's Steam Store is anti-competition, noted.

It's also been revealed in court document leaks that only 7% of people actually buy something after getting the free games.

And it is supposed to be what % to be worth it?


Valve grabs as big a share of the game revenue, as the filthy Apple does, while having sales of billions.
All that for a puny software online store.

 

[64K]

EPIC store competing with Valve's Steam Store is anti-competition, noted.

No other store has done what Epic has been doing. Valve, EA, etc have all had exclusives to their store but there is one significant difference. The exclusives were their own Developed games. Their own property. Gamers don't really like that but it is understandable that they can do whatever they want to with their own property. Most gamers consider that competition. What Epic is doing is paying other Publishers to make their games exclusive to EGS. This is what a lot of gamers consider anti-competitive. Personally I don't care. I wait for a few years to buy games anyway.

And it is supposed to be what % to be worth it?

Well it sure as hell isn't 7%. That is pitiful.

 

[NRANM]

As I mentioned in my first post, do you really think time exclusives are meant to play fair, especially when you consider there is actually nothing stopping the same game from being distributed via other platforms? Sure EPIC paid for the game/ software to be exclusive to their store, but in doing so, say 6 months down the road and you want to buy the game, how would you know you are getting the best deal since there is only 1 store selling it?

The same thing applies if the game is sold only on Steam.
I can agree that if a game is available on multiple stores, there is a higher chance that it would be available sooner at a better price somewhere, however, that is nowhere near close to guaranteed.

So logically, you will still go back to the store that contains most of your games most of the time, instead of a library from another game store that contains a mish mash of games that I may not want to play, but just download for the fun of it since its free.

Yes, exactly. Epic has to do something to bring people over. Selling the same games at the same or even lower prices won't change anything because gamers will stick with Steam. Free games, according to some people, are ineffective or even laughable. Exclusives are very bad because reasons. So what is left?

Let's have a thought experiment: you (or anyone else) own a rich company that wants to challenge Steam and take some of its market share. How do you go about doing that? What is the most pro-consumer strategy?

Objectively, I can safely tell you that none of them are for consumers. Everything these corporates do are for the profit and $$$. I hope you don't really think that EGS will continue to give you great free games and offer games at cheap prices after they toppled Steam? Even assuming they win the anti competitive lawsuit against Apple, do you think they won't start increasing prices at some point? They have investors that they need to appease to keep investment and their role secure.

I'm not an idiot. I'm under no illusion that any of those huge corporations have anything but profit as their only (or at the very least primary) goal. All of these companies are doing whatever they believe will be most beneficial for their bottom line. If that happens to coincide with something that is considered pro-consumer, they will parade with it; if it happens to coincide with something that is anti-consumer, they will spin it, sweep it under the rug, or ignore it until people forget. No company is exempt from this rule, it applies even to industry darlings like Valve and GOG/CDPR.

Would Epic continue to give away free games if they (hypothetically) overtook Steam? Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it. It is Epic's way of trying get more people to go to their store, to build its user base. That may seem insignificant now, and it may remain so, but they have to start somewhere. Epic may never gain any significant market share, but any gains are bound to be slow and difficult, Valve/Steam is a juggernaut. No company can make a dent in Steam's market share just like that.

No other store has done what Epic has been doing. Valve, EA, etc have all had exclusives to their store but there is one significant difference. The exclusives were their own Developed games. Their own property. Gamers don't really like that but it is understandable that they can do whatever they want to with their own property. Most gamers consider that competition. What Epic is doing is paying other Publishers to make their games exclusive to EGS. This is what a lot of gamers consider anti-competitive. Personally I don't care. I wait for a few years to buy games anyway.

Yes, a lot of gamers consider this anti-competitive, although they do not explain how exactly it "hurts" anyone. They also do not provide any suggestions as to what would be considered competitive.
When someone complains about something without any arguments or suggestions for a solution, that is called "whining".

 

[64K]

The same thing applies if the game is sold only on Steam.
I can agree that if a game is available on multiple stores, there is a higher chance that it would be available sooner at a better price somewhere, however, that is nowhere near close to guaranteed.


Yes, exactly. Epic has to do something to bring people over. Selling the same games at the same or even lower prices won't change anything because gamers will stick with Steam. Free games, according to some people, are ineffective or even laughable. Exclusives are very bad because reasons. So what is left?

Let's have a thought experiment: you (or anyone else) own a rich company that wants to challenge Steam and take some of its market share. How do you go about doing that? What is the most pro-consumer strategy?


I'm not an idiot. I'm under no illusion that any of those huge corporations have anything but profit as their only (or at the very least primary) goal. All of these companies are doing whatever they believe will be most beneficial for their bottom line. If that happens to coincide with something that is considered pro-consumer, they will parade with it; if it happens to coincide with something that is anti-consumer, they will spin it, sweep it under the rug, or ignore it until people forget. No company is exempt from this rule, it applies even to industry darlings like Valve and GOG/CDPR.

Would Epic continue to give away free games if they (hypothetically) overtook Steam? Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it. It is Epic's way of trying get more people to go to their store, to build its user base. That may seem insignificant now, and it may remain so, but they have to start somewhere. Epic may never gain any significant market share, but any gains are bound to be slow and difficult, Valve/Steam is a juggernaut. No company can make a dent in Steam's market share just like that.


Yes, a lot of gamers consider this anti-competitive, although they do not explain how exactly it "hurts" anyone. They also do not provide any suggestions as to what would be considered competitive.
When someone complains about something without any arguments or suggestions for a solution, that is called "whining".

Tim Sweeney said over 2 years ago that he planned to build a service that would one day rival Steam.

Well, maybe when Epic adds a Shopping Cart to EGS like every other store has had since Day One of opening then it will boost my confidence that they are competent and intend to compete intelligently but they consider that a long range goal. For now they are a silly embarrassment to gaming.

Trello

Organize anything, together. Trello is a collaboration tool that organizes your projects into boards. In one glance, know what's being worked on, who's working on what, and where something is in a process.

trello.com

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Let's have a thought experiment: you (or anyone else) own a rich company that wants to challenge Steam and take some of its market share. How do you go about doing that? What is the most pro-consumer strategy?

Great question - clearly Epic has crazy amounts of money considering the amount they have dumped into exclusives so they should have no issue improving the storefront's feature set to more closely rival GOG & Steam, their two primary competitors.

For me, the thing that keeps me going to GOG is the offline installers and the refund policy. If a game is available at GOG and Steam, I'll always buy it at GOG for this reason, and Steam has the best storefront due to the featureset, so if Epic wants to compete with the two best storefronts, they need to, at minimum, try to match what makes both of those stores so popular - in my case, offline installers and build a better storefront with a better refund policy. Because if they can't give me a good reason to come to their storefront over what GOG & Steam already offer, then I'm not going to do it. Some people will allow themselves to be forced, but as we're seeing with some of the stats folks are posting from Epic's legal battle with Apple, only a very small percentage of their users who claim free games are also buying things at Epic, which indicates the super majority of folks with accounts there are giving a middle finger to Epic on a consistent basis.

 

[NRANM]

Well, maybe when Epic adds a Shopping Cart to EGS like every other store has had since Day One of opening

I haven't been using Steam from its inception, but I strongly doubt it had a shopping cart from "day one".

For me, the thing that keeps me going to GOG is the offline installers and the refund policy. If a game is available at GOG and Steam, I'll always buy it at GOG for this reason, and Steam has the best storefront due to the featureset, so if Epic wants to compete with the two best storefronts, they need to, at minimum, try to match what makes both of those stores so popular - in my case, offline installers and build a better storefront with a better refund policy. Because if they can't give me a good reason to come to their storefront over what GOG & Steam already offer, then I'm not going to do it. Some people will allow themselves to be forced, but as we're seeing with some of the stats folks are posting from Epic's legal battle with Apple, only a very small percentage of their users who claim free games are also buying things at Epic, which indicates the super majority of folks with accounts there are giving a middle finger to Epic on a consistent basis.

Considering GOG's refund policy is significantly better than Steam's, I will assume you would like a refund policy as good or better than GOG's. Sooo.... if Epic provided offline installers and matched GOG's refund policy, you would start purchasing games there?
Those would be great changes, I concur, but why would anyone leave GOG for Epic if they are already comfortable and used to with the former, and the latter offers nothing different?
And keep in mind that even though GOG offers offline installers and has a drastically superior refund policy, it is still no real competition to Steam, so it would seem that these, admittedly, truly pro-consumer features are not enough to turn one's store into a competitor to Steam.
Also, let me remind you that Steam introduced refunds basically 6 years ago. Up until then there was no official refund policy. I don't know if it was literally impossible to receive a refund or if it was possible in some really rare/extreme cases. Point being, users were unable to "just get a refund", but that didn't seem to be a problem. Steam was flourishing. Let me be clear here. I'm not advocating against a refund policy, not at all. I'm just saying that perhaps it isn't nearly as critically important as it may seem at first glance.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Considering GOG's refund policy is significantly better than Steam's, I will assume you would like a refund policy as good or better than GOG's. Sooo.... if Epic provided offline installers and matched GOG's refund policy, you would start purchasing games there?
Those would be great changes, I concur, but why would anyone leave GOG for Epic if they are already comfortable and used to with the former, and the latter offers nothing different?
And keep in mind that even though GOG offers offline installers and has a drastically superior refund policy, it is still no real competition to Steam, so it would seem that these, admittedly, truly pro-consumer features are not enough to turn one's store into a competitor to Steam.
Also, let me remind you that Steam introduced refunds basically 6 years ago. Up until then there was no official refund policy. I don't know if it was literally impossible to receive a refund or if it was possible in some really rare/extreme cases. Point being, users were unable to "just get a refund", but that didn't seem to be a problem. Steam was flourishing. Let me be clear here. I'm not advocating against a refund policy, not at all. I'm just saying that perhaps it isn't nearly as critically important as it may seem at first glance.

That's why I said 'at minimum' - they would need to match key perks from other stores (and likely even go beyond them), to get people to give them a try. Offline installers are a huge thing - but many devs won't commit to them and end up staying with Steam or other DRM enforced launchers, so Epic's best bet is to do what they can to identify the most meaningful features / perks at each store to people and then match and even exceed them if they want to try to take customers from them - have to give those customers a good reason to migrate or they will be resistant.

What hurts GOG is what I mentioned above - many devs won't even consider selling games without a heavy DRM presence so that is a key reason why GOG has a much smaller library of games - GOG also (I believe, at least) won't sell adult games, so that's another pro for Steam.

I think refunds are VERY important to users. You're correct that x number of years back Steam didn't have a refund policy, but I do remember it being a common complaint by users, likely being the reason they ended up adding it. It's kinda like cars how features initially start out as something specific to a particular brand and then gradually more makers start implementing them as "Standard" on newer models - refund policies are the same way now - and at least for me, if a new storefront was trying to open up, having offline installers, and a better refund policy than the competition would be key things that would incentivize me to give such a storefront a try in good faith since those are the key things I look at when buying games at GOG and Steam now. I feel these types of things give potential customers better reasons to try a new storefront if they feel they're getting better perks than from their existing stores of choice.

 

[64K]

I haven't been using Steam from its inception, but I strongly doubt it had a shopping cart from "day one".

It is irrelevant. Valve was breaking new ground with Steam back in 2004. Epic didn't have to do that in 2018. It's all laid out in front of them how to be successful but they still fumble the ball even now. It's comical to watch.

 

[NRANM]

Interestingly, still no explanation how Epic's exclusives are anti-consumer/competitive.
And still no examples of what you would consider a pro-consumer business strategy for Epic.

No solutions, just whining, because it's easier and makes some people feel like keyboard warriors when they hate on a person/company/entity that is cool to hate.
"Hey, look, some people have some issues with a Windows update. Man, those Microsoft fellas sure suck, huh! Amirite, guys?!"
"Apple has its own eco system that is very closed. That is, like, super horrible, right? They should be forced to change it because reasons and stuff. Look at me stating against Apple, and for the people!"
"Oh noez, Epic has exclusives. This means there is literally no way for anyone to play those games during the exclusivity period. It's not like people can register a free account and purchase the game. No, that cannot be done because for me, as a gamer, the store is more important than the games themselves. Can I get a 'hell yeah' for my flawless logic?!"

 

[Deleted member 177333]

@ NRANM - I thought you and I had a friendly chat going on this topic, so not sure what this latest post is...trolling? Almost seems like you're not attempting to have a discussion in good faith after making a post like that attacking people when some of us had a friendly back and forth going with you.

 

[NRANM]

I'm attacking nobody, however, I was annoyed that even though you said it was a great question, you did not provide a proper answer. You basically explained what you would like to see improved, which is fine, but did not make it clear if that would convince you to switch over to Epic. If it wouldn't, then it isn't an example of a viable strategy on Epic's part.

And it is also frustrating that when I call out people on their unsubstantiated claims, they just ignore the issue. I added some (somewhat exaggerated) examples of complaints to illustrate the typical mindset I encounter in various comment sections.

To put it another way, I am annoyed that many people resort to simply repeating the same statement over and over, while refusing to actually engage in a detailed discussion about it.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

I was annoyed that even though you said it was a great question, you did not provide a proper answer. You basically explained what you would like to see improved, which is fine, but did not make it clear if that would convince you to switch over to Epic. If it wouldn't, then it isn't an example of a viable strategy on Epic's part.

Really? I think you should take the time to re-read what I said in response to you (I quoted you) in post #8 in this thread - had Epic gone the route I described there instead of what they chose I would have been happy to give them a shot, and same goes moving forward for any new storefronts that enter the fray. Do those three things I described and I'd give them a chance.

I don't like giving my credit card out so that's why I prefer Paypal. Offline installers would match GOG, and if they could beat the refund policies then right there would be all I'd need to give them a go. I wouldn't have to worry about credit card security, I'd have a DRM free copy of the game for permanent backup, and I'd know I had a solid refund option if there was something wrong with the game, etc. That's really all I'm looking for when I go to buy a game.

To address your question on the anti consumer stuff - using what I've mentioned above in what I'm looking for as a reference, let's take a look at what Epic actually did instead - they have a trash launcher with limited features and there have been a good number of security concerns with the store (imagine how much the launcher and security could have been improved if they'd dumped a billion dollars into improving those things instead of bribes), and I believe at one point (maybe still current today?) they didn't take Paypal as a payment option meaning you'd have to give them your credit card # which I would never do. And their solution, instead of addressing these concerns, is to literally bribe publishers and devs to the tune of millions (around a billion if reports are accurate) of dollars into cutting out actual good storefronts from being able to sell the game. To me, that's absolutely anti consumer because I, the consumer, do not benefit in any way from this - in fact I would be receiving an inferior experience and product if I chose to do business with Epic under those circumstances. If I was willing to play Epic's way, that would mean I'd have to acquiesce to security concerns (aforementioned credit card and store security issues), run a trash launcher on my rig, and effectively sell out my freedom in now not being able to even choose where I want to buy the game. That's where I stand on all of this.

 

[NRANM]

The question wasn't what would take to make you give Epic a try, it was what should Epic have done to be able to compete with Steam while also remaining pro-consumer, etc. Sure, you may give them a try, but that could be a one-time thing only. What about other users?
My point is that offering offline installers and better refund policy is insufficient to take away a chunk of Steam's market share. GOG, while not tiny, is not really a competitor to Steam. It gets AAA games but only after they have ran their course and are safe to be "dumped" to GOG.

Secondly, you keep using the word "bribe", which I would disagree is apt. As I've told you in the past, a bribe implies illegality. There is nothing illegal here. It a business contract between two parties. Also, for the sake of moral integrity, if Epic is to be criticized for these exclusive games, so should the publishers/developers as well, as they can simply reject Epic's proposition. This, coincidentally, also applies to bribes. If one party is offering a bribe, and another party is accepting it, which of them is considered guilty? Could it be both, with even the receiver of the bribe being considered more responsible?

Where is the outrage aimed at the publishers/developers who have agreed to the exclusivity deals? It's nowhere to be found. Why is that? Is it because people are intellectually dishonest to apply the same standard and principles evenly? Is it because people are not intelligent enough to realize that if they call these exclusivity deals "bribes", they need to also put blame on the developers/publishers? Is it because it doesn't look as good to blame a publisher/developer (especially smaller ones), whereas Epic has been established as "cool to hate" so let's jump on the blame/hate bandwagon. All the cool kids are doing it.

Also, it seems to me you have a very skewed interpretation of what anti-consumer is. You not benefiting from something is not the same as it being anti-consumer. "Anti" implies a negative impact. And since you actually mentioned that you would be receiving an inferior product, how so? How is Game X worse when on Epic's store, compared to if it is purchased from Steam? Would it be less buggy if it were to be released on Steam? Would it have better gameplay or story if released on Steam?

I'm not sure to what security issues you are referring. I'm not arguing there aren't any but I'm not aware of any major ones.
PayPal is a supported payment method.
Epic's launcher is not trash. It may not be as good as Steam and it may still require many improvements and polish but to call it "trash" is absurd. It performs its primary function: to allow users to purchase, download, and play games. Just like most people, I would very much like to see various missing features added to it, but it is not "trash". Believe it or not, I actually find it better than Origin and even GOG Galaxy. The latter is pretty ambitious and has nice ideas, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. I may even like Epic's launcher more than Ubisoft's.

Of course, it is your right to not like Epic's launcher and refuse to use it, but your subjective preference does not make it anti-consumer or "trash".

Sell out your freedom? Wow, that's some melodrama right there.
You are aware that there are games that can only be purchased on Steam, right? Can I apply the same logic that Steam is limiting my freedom as to where I can purchase said games?

 

[Deleted member 177333]

The question wasn't what would take to make you give Epic a try, it was what should Epic have done to be able to compete with Steam while also remaining pro-consumer, etc. Sure, you may give them a try, but that could be a one-time thing only. What about other users?
My point is that offering offline installers and better refund policy is insufficient to take away a chunk of Steam's market share. GOG, while not tiny, is not really a competitor to Steam. It gets AAA games but only after they have ran their course and are safe to be "dumped" to GOG.

I gave you my answer - and I can only answer for me - if you were expecting me or any single person to provide an all-encompassing answer for all other gamers then I think your expectations were probably a little too high with this question.

Secondly, you keep using the word "bribe", which I would disagree is apt. As I've told you in the past, a bribe implies illegality. There is nothing illegal here. It a business contract between two parties. Also, for the sake of moral integrity, if Epic is to be criticized for these exclusive games, so should the publishers/developers as well, as they can simply reject Epic's proposition. This, coincidentally, also applies to bribes. If one party is offering a bribe, and another party is accepting it, which of them is considered guilty? Could it be both, with even the receiver of the bribe being considered more responsible?

I think you fully understand the point I was making, so no need to mince words - it's anti consumer for the reasons I described. And I disagree that people do not criticize the publishers / developers. I have seen numerous devs and publishers get pretty well berated by gamers on various messageboards when news is announced of exclusivity. If you've researched this, I suspect you have as well, so I'm surprised to see you make this case. Epic gets criticized more because they initiate the bribe. We've seen a few instances where some devs have actually turned them down like the developer who made the game called DARQ.

Where is the outrage aimed at the publishers/developers who have agreed to the exclusivity deals? It's nowhere to be found. Why is that? Is it because people are intellectually dishonest to apply the same standard and principles evenly? Is it because people are not intelligent enough to realize that if they call these exclusivity deals "bribes", they need to also put blame on the developers/publishers? Is it because it doesn't look as good to blame a publisher/developer (especially smaller ones), whereas Epic has been established as "cool to hate" so let's jump on the blame/hate bandwagon. All the cool kids are doing it.

Nowhere to be found? Just a couple quick examples below that took only a couple mins to find - the devs do get backlash, too. Even today, years later, I occasionally see gamers referencing Metro Exodus and how they'll never buy a game from that developer again. The reason you see it more with Epic is because with every instance of these exclusivity situations, Epic is involved in all of them (obviously) while the same developer is not always involved. If Epic wasn't offering these bribes, or contracts as you say, the situations wouldn't occur.

Julian Gollop is “truly sorry” to fans upset by Phoenix Point’s Epic Games store release

Creative director Julian Gollop has apologised to fans upset by the move, but says he doesn't expect too many refund requests

www.pcgamesn.com

4A Games embroiled in controversy over Metro Exodus' Epic Games Store exclusivity

The publisher of Metro Exodus continues to face a backlash after making Metro Exodus temporarily exclusive to the Epic …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Also, it seems to me you have a very skewed interpretation of what anti-consumer is. You not benefiting from something is not the same as it being anti-consumer. "Anti" implies a negative impact. And since you actually mentioned that you would be receiving an inferior product, how so? How is Game X worse when on Epic's store, compared to if it is purchased from Steam? Would it be less buggy if it were to be released on Steam? Would it have better gameplay or story if released on Steam?

Sure it is - and I'll even borrow something you said in post #16 - you were talking about GOG, but the same really applies here where you said:
"why would anyone leave GOG for Epic if they are already comfortable and used to with the former, and the latter offers nothing different?"
And that right there is why Epic is anti consumer - they offer the player no favorable reason to come to Epic, and use their locking out of other storefronts as a method of strongarming people to the storefront - they don't give the player incentive to come there because it's a good store, they try to take the choice away and favor business interests with contractual agreements (as you noted). And that is anti consumer.

Here is Merriam Webster's definition of anti consumer: : not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

PayPal is a supported payment method.
Epic's launcher is not trash. It may not be as good as Steam and it may still require many improvements and polish but to call it "trash" is absurd. It performs its primary function: to allow users to purchase, download, and play games. Just like most people, I would very much like to see various missing features added to it, but it is not "trash". Believe it or not, I actually find it better than Origin and even GOG Galaxy. The latter is pretty ambitious and has nice ideas, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. I may even like Epic's launcher more than Ubisoft's.

Of course, it is your right to not like Epic's launcher and refuse to use it, but your subjective preference does not make it anti-consumer or "trash".

Glad to hear they got Paypal added, that is at least a step in the right direction.
We'll just have to overall disagree about the state of Epic's launcher - and I am not only criticizing Epic's - I agree with you that Ubisoft's is not good, either. I haven't used GOG's as I only download offline installers from GOG and back them up on my local server.

Sell out your freedom? Wow, that's some melodrama right there.
You are aware that there are games that can only be purchased on Steam, right? Can I apply the same logic that Steam is limiting my freedom as to where I can purchase said games?

Simply the truth - the difference here is that, to my knowledge, Steam hasn't been bribing 3rd party publishers to make their games exclusive to Steam. And that's the only issue with exclusivity that I have with Epic and I suspect other players are in the same boat - it's when they are going out and writing a check to publishers to cut out other storefronts. I don't criticize them over games like Fortnite since it's a 1st party game, although I would prefer more companies follow CD Projekt Red's example with CP2077 where they released it at a bunch of storefronts instead of making it exclusive to GOG.

Bottom line, with Epic's resources (I mean holy hell, they've dropped like a billion dollars on exclusives), you'd think they could have done some of the things we've discussed here to improve the store and offer actual real-life favorable things to get people to come there and not just try brute forcing people in there by cutting out better stores. I constantly see folks who just wait for exclusivity to end and buy the game somewhere else or just ride the high seas to get around what Epic is doing.

 

[etayorius]

They should instead invest all that cash in making their platform as good as Steam.