EGS Official Statement "Epic vs. Google Trial Verdict a Win for All Developers"

[Assimilator]

Dont know how anyone in their right mind thinks multiple store fronts is better than one. it isnt.

When Netflix became a dozen or so streaming services, did they all cost 1/12th of the price so the total cost to the consumer is the same? No.

Is the PC market better now with uplay, EA, epic etc. all separate store/launchers? No.

Do we want to give card details and register on extra services? Most people probably no.

Epic moan about monopoly yet on the PC platform, they use anti consumer practices by enticing developers to make "exclusivity" deals with them so they have monopoly on the content. With their launcher/store still missing multiple basic features.

We also know they dont reduce prices to get rid of this so called unfair margin, its unfair to them because they want it as their margin instead.

In an ideal world, yes, we would all be able to consume content from within a single portal. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a capitalism-dominated one, which means that companies cost money to run and exist to make money, and therefore attempt to avoid expenditure as far as possible. If that company is a monopoly, it thus has no incentive to spend money on adding features or improving customer service, so their product stagnates and consumers suffer.

Competition forces companies to spend money to improve their offering, so that they are more attractive to consumers, so that they can get those consumers' money, so that the company can continue to exist. This results in products that are constantly improved, which provides more value to consumers. History has shown us that in a capitalist society, competition is always the better option, which is exactly why monopolies are outlawed now.

Epic's exclusivity deals are not illegal because they are not forcing the developers of EGS-exclusive games to only use EGS; it's an offer that the developer can accept or decline. And this exclusivity is only for a period of time, not forever. There is nothing stopping e.g. Steam from offering similar incentives to developers, it's simply that Steam doesn't need to. Further, the only reason that EGS is offering these deals is to increase its marketshare against Steam's far larger share, so Epic is in no way being unfairly advantaged here - arguably its actions are making the game storefront market more competitive.

And of course Epic wants to make more money. Nobody has ever claimed the opposite, so I don't know why people keep bringing this up like it's an argument, because it's not. They're a capitalist company in a capitalist society, if they weren't trying to make money it would be a problem. Yes, they're not being truthful about why they brought this suit, but what company ever is nowadays? The important part is not the means (the lawsuit) but the ends (Google being found guilty of monopolistic practices and forced to end them).

It's odd they lost the same case with Apple. I assume the stores are fairly different.

Very different arguments made in both cases, plus this was a jury trial while the Apple one was not.

 

[Easy Rhino]

This sums it up nicely.

 

[neatfeatguy]

No?

EGS itself proves that wrong. They compete with a lower distribution cost for using their store to sell a game. They can do that. Steam doesn't. They offer a better service. They can do that. GOG offers DRM free. They can do that. PC users can access every service even simultaneously. All stores can compete on price. They all do their sales and promotions. We can check everything out just as easily.

The PC is heaven, in terms of fair market. Steam doesn't block anyone. You can do whatever you like. The fact people dont want to, is a personal choice. And that, ladies and gents is exactly why the argument against EGS being anticompetitive for their exclusives is absolute horse manure. You can simply not buy it and get any other game. That's not a monopoly on access. Its a monopoly on a piece of content, but you have every freedom to access it.

Just one small correction: I wouldn't stay Steam offers a better service, but they offer a different service. I personally don't think Steam offers anything good. I do acknowledge that they offer a service that others really like and enjoy to use, but in the end it is just a personal preference.

Thankfully I can choose not to support Steam. It is great that the PC gaming industry is more open than other aspects of the digital world we have. I think it could be a lot better, but at least we're not stuck in a walled garden like you find yourself with some companies and their products.

 

[Vayra86]

This sums it up nicely.

Yeah, what can I say, read something instead of watching bullshit videos. Like the ruling itself, instead of letting someone trim it down for you into a soundbite that's plain wrong but comes off as well thought out.

You can find any 'truth' you prefer online, doesn't mean its true or has merit. All you summed up here is why the world's going to shit. People get fed by videos parroting absolute BS.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Yeah, what can I say, read something instead of watching bullshit videos. Like the ruling itself, instead of letting someone trim it down for you into a soundbite that's plain wrong but comes off as well thought out.

You can find any 'truth' you prefer online, doesn't mean its true or has merit. All you summed up here is why the world's going to shit. People get fed by videos parroting absolute BS.

Fireship is a very large and respected tech channel. Nothing said in the video seems to contradict what I have read in the WSJ...

 

[Vayra86]

Fireship is a very large and respected tech channel. Nothing said in the video seems to contradict what I have read in the WSJ...

You're right and I'm wrong. I was gonna change the post. Didn't watch whole video because the cringe was too much early on, and now I did. Its an OK summary, but the title didn't match with the contents 'Epic Fail'? It makes no sense.

Still though, reading's better

 

[chrcoluk]

In an ideal world, yes, we would all be able to consume content from within a single portal. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a capitalism-dominated one, which means that companies cost money to run and exist to make money, and therefore attempt to avoid expenditure as far as possible. If that company is a monopoly, it thus has no incentive to spend money on adding features or improving customer service, so their product stagnates and consumers suffer.

Competition forces companies to spend money to improve their offering, so that they are more attractive to consumers, so that they can get those consumers' money, so that the company can continue to exist. This results in products that are constantly improved, which provides more value to consumers. History has shown us that in a capitalist society, competition is always the better option, which is exactly why monopolies are outlawed now.

Epic's exclusivity deals are not illegal because they are not forcing the developers of EGS-exclusive games to only use EGS; it's an offer that the developer can accept or decline. And this exclusivity is only for a period of time, not forever. There is nothing stopping e.g. Steam from offering similar incentives to developers, it's simply that Steam doesn't need to. Further, the only reason that EGS is offering these deals is to increase its marketshare against Steam's far larger share, so Epic is in no way being unfairly advantaged here - arguably its actions are making the game storefront market more competitive.

And of course Epic wants to make more money. Nobody has ever claimed the opposite, so I don't know why people keep bringing this up like it's an argument, because it's not. They're a capitalist company in a capitalist society, if they weren't trying to make money it would be a problem. Yes, they're not being truthful about why they brought this suit, but what company ever is nowadays? The important part is not the means (the lawsuit) but the ends (Google being found guilty of monopolistic practices and forced to end them).

Other stores exist on Android, I know as I have used them in the past. Apps can also be installed outside of any store and is even a supported mechanism by android itself.

I also have apps that let you pay for them outside of the play store as well.

What is the difference to the consumer of a software only available on one store because that is the only store vs a new store that makes that the only way to install because of an anti consumer exclusivity deal?

If Epic existed simply as an alternative without making these exclusivity deals, I wouldnt be that bothered, but I find exclusivity deals the scum of the scum behaviour. The fact they make these deals says it all as it means their store/launcher cannot compete on other metrics.

 

[Assimilator]

The fact they make these deals says it all as it means their store/launcher cannot compete on other metrics.

They are trying to compete with Steam which has the advantage of being the de facto PC game store, of course they need to do something extra to incentivise users to switch. It's not illegal to use your own money to try to increase your marketshare when you're not a monopoly.

 

[AusWolf]

Not that I'm a fan of any megacorporation like Google or Apple (I'm really not), but Epic winning a lawsuit on the basis of exclusive deals and profit margins is an arguable win for the developer, and not a win for the consumer at all. Let's not forget that Epic is the exact company that does all the shady exclusivity deals on their Windows gaming platform that they now sued Google and Apple for. Hypocrisy at its deepest.

 

[Assimilator]

Not that I'm a fan of any megacorporation like Google or Apple (I'm really not), but Epic winning a lawsuit on the basis of exclusive deals and profit margins is an arguable win for the developer, and not a win for the consumer at all. Let's not forget that Epic is the exact company that does all the shady exclusivity deals on their Windows gaming platform that they now sued Google and Apple for. Hypocrisy at its deepest.

Spending your own money to increase your marketshare when you're not the dominant player enhances competition, therefore it's completely legal. If it wasn't, advertising would be banned.

Spending your own money to prevent other players from gaining marketshare, when you're a/the dominant player, decreases competition, which is why it's illegal.

 

[AusWolf]

Spending your own money to increase your marketshare when you're not the dominant player enhances competition, therefore it's completely legal. If it wasn't, advertising would be banned.

Spending your own money to prevent other players from gaining marketshare, when you're a/the dominant player, decreases competition, which is why it's illegal.

In my opinion, spending money, or jumping through legal loopholes, to prevent other players from gaining marketshare is unethical, bad for the consumer, and should be illegal regardless of your position in the market. If your product or service is good, consumers will choose it naturally. If it's bad, then you deserve to go bankrupt and close shop.

 

[Vayra86]

Dont know how anyone in their right mind thinks multiple store fronts is better than one. it isnt.

When Netflix became a dozen or so streaming services, did they all cost 1/12th of the price so the total cost to the consumer is the same? No.

Is the PC market better now with uplay, EA, epic etc. all separate store/launchers? No.

Do we want to give card details and register on extra services? Most people probably no.

Epic moan about monopoly yet on the PC platform, they use anti consumer practices by enticing developers to make "exclusivity" deals with them so they have monopoly on the content. With their launcher/store still missing multiple basic features.

We also know they dont reduce prices to get rid of this so called unfair margin, its unfair to them because they want it as their margin instead.

So you despise a monopoly but in the opening sentence of your post you say its the best way to get your content.

Logic, try using some. You want your cake and eat it too, the world doesn't work like that. Entitlement, is what that's called, you might not even realize it, but it is just that. Common sense would have you apply the same principle everywhere, but you don't do that.

Of course multiple storefronts is better than one. We have ... an entire planet of commerce... proving that. Imagine having all cars sold by one store. All bread. All phones. How do you imagine that even works?

If your product or service is good, consumers will choose it naturally.

I'd love a world with 0 advertising but we all know this isn't gonna happen. If you want to sell something people need to first know about it. And good products do NOT sell on their own merit. That's bullshit. They only do that when they no longer need advertising because they're a common thing.
If good products would be chosen naturally, we wouldn't have a gaming market full of utter junk. Also: consumers have bad taste. Do you believe they choose the best products all the time? Its really mostly personal preference. Define good. I'll see you in a few decades while you figure it out

 

[AusWolf]

So you despise a monopoly but in the opening sentence of your post you say its the best way to get your content.

Logic, try using some. You want your cake and eat it too, the world doesn't work like that. Entitlement, is what that's called, you might not even realize it, but it is just that. Common sense would have you apply the same principle everywhere, but you don't do that.

Of course multiple storefronts is better than one. We have ... an entire planet of commerce... proving that. Imagine having all cars sold by one store. All bread. All phones. How do you imagine that even works?

What you're saying is nice in theory, but I don't see it work in practice. Epic blocks any competition with their exclusivity deals, locks you out of any choice to buy certain games elsewhere, while the rest of the games on Epic cost the same as anywhere else without the Epic store offering any value over the competition. Pure laziness and greed = welcome to the Epic universe!

I'd love a world with 0 advertising but we all know this isn't gonna happen. If you want to sell something people need to first know about it. And good products do NOT sell on their own merit. That's bullshit. They only do that when they no longer need advertising because they're a common thing.
If good products would be chosen naturally, we wouldn't have a gaming market full of utter junk. Also: consumers have bad taste. Do you believe they choose the best products all the time? Its really mostly personal preference. Define good. I'll see you in a few decades while you figure it out

I'm not against advertising. I'm against the idea of monopolising certain games to block any competition and consumers from having any choice under the flag of consumer rights and anti-monopolistic practices.

 

[Vayra86]

What you're saying is nice in theory, but I don't see it work in practice. Epic blocks any competition with their exclusivity deals, locks you out of any choice to buy certain games elsewhere, while the rest of the games on Epic cost the same as anywhere else without the Epic store offering any value over the competition. Pure laziness and greed = welcome to the Epic universe!

Oh? Did we get less choice in gaming since EGS? As far as I can see, we actually have gained even more ways to get content, like Gamepass. The vast majority of services is peddling the same wares. EGS has a few titles exclusive to its platform, and if you so choose, you can install the platform and play the games. In that they're no different from Steam, GoG, or any other service. Yes, even Steam has a few platform exclusives.

There is no competition being blocked here. Total nonsense and its not supported by numbers or facts, nor logic. Exclusivity on content has happened everywhere since forever and markets have always thrived because of it. If you want competitive markets with actual choice you need competitors, and for competitors to exist, you need them to be able to carve out Unique Selling Points. Price is not a USP. Its just price and racing to the bottom to destroy your margins. Businesses can't live off promotions. Any company can reduce price.

This whole argument just drops dead the moment you realize you can install any launcher. Your access to content is not limited. Competition is not changed in any way: publishers still release the same games. The limitation is only with you the consumer for not wanting to do A or B, or pay price C. That's the market working as it should: you have choices and therefore you will favor one or the other competitor.

I'm not against advertising. I'm against the idea of monopolising certain games to block any competition and consumers from having any choice under the flag of consumer rights and anti-monopolistic practices.

All content is monopolized.
Its a product made by a dev and released by a publisher and they decide what to do with it. You have no right or freedom to a piece of content. Its a product sold through a contract, and you as a consumer can choose to sign that agreement or not. If part of the deal is accessing the content through EGS and paying the full price for it, that's the deal. And you can freely choose to not buy it - EGS will lose sales exactly because of the arguments and your position as a consumer with that company. That is competition working as it should.

Your idea of free choice is fundamentally flawed because you apply it to every piece of content in isolation. You omit the fact that the content market is the market you're talking about - content competes with content. Not with storefronts. Valve can simply get a similar type of game in its store and compete.

 

[AusWolf]

Oh? Did we get less choice in gaming since EGS?

Yes. Alan Wake 2 is, and will always be available only on Epic, so I had to buy it there and install the Epic launcher, which I would have never done otherwise, as the Epic store and launcher have literally zero unique selling points. Speaking of which, they seem to brag about smaller profit margins as their best selling point, but I don't see that anywhere in the price that I pay. You also mentioned unique selling points, but what do you mean exactly? I see none.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes. Alan Wake 2 is, and will always be available only on Epic, so I had to buy it there and install the Epic launcher, which I would have never done otherwise, as the Epic store and launcher have literally zero unique selling points. Speaking of which, they seem to brag about smaller profit margins as their best selling point, but I don't see that anywhere in the price that I pay. You also mentioned unique selling points, but what do you mean exactly? I see none.

Alan Wake 2 is a single piece of content. You can play Alan Wake 1. You can play any number of similar story driven games. But you wanted to play Alan Wake 2.

The USP for Epic here is clear and you fell for it: you used Epic to buy this game, because the availability on EGS is the USP the store uses to draw you to it.

Me, I hate EGS enough to not go there. That's a choice and it also relates directly to EGS having its USP there. That deal for me is a no-no. Quite the same as not buying a Ferrari, right? If I had no limits I could buy and do everything. But that's not how it works. I also can't go buying a Ferrari at Volkswagen, somehow

How do you think services like Netflix and HBO exist side by side? Come on man. Its not complicated. You're in the same twisted thought process as chrcoluk here: you don't want monopolized content, but you deny storefronts to actually develop differences so there is a reason to actually run a store and prevent monopolized content.

 

[Onasi]

Speaking of which, they seem to brag about smaller profit margins as their best selling point, but I don't see that anywhere in the price that I pay.

That’s really the only point that Epic consistently makes that makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, you are allowed to make exclusivity deals. Yes, developers are free to take those deals. I may not like it, but it’s not in any way illegal or shady. Not dissimilar to console exclusives, and while I also don’t like those, they are a reality of the business.
But the whole margins thing… Yeah, it’s technically better for the devs. However, as a consumer, I don’t actually care. Might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. Saying that it is in any way beneficial to ME as Epic often does is weird since I still pay the same amount. They love reiterating how their policies are a “win for the customers”, but so far this is bogus. All I see as a customer is another storefront, in many ways inferior to ones I already use, that I have to go through for certain content with no benefit to myself. Again, this is fine as business move, growing market share and all that, just don’t gaslight me into believing it’s for my benefit.

 

[Vayra86]

That’s really the only point that Epic consistently makes that makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, you are allowed to make exclusivity deals. Yes, developers are free to take those deals. I may not like it, but it’s not in any way illegal or shady. Not dissimilar to console exclusives, and while I also don’t like those, they are a reality of the business.
But the whole margins thing… Yeah, it’s technically better for the devs. However, as a consumer, I don’t actually care. Might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. Saying that it is in any way beneficial to ME as Epic often does is weird since I still pay the same amount. They love reiterating how their policies are a “win for the customers”, but so far this is bogus. All I see as a customer is another storefront, in many ways inferior to ones I already use, that I have to go through for certain content with no benefit to myself. Again, this is fine as business move, growing market share and all that, just don’t gaslight me into believing it’s for my benefit.

Well put... There is a fundamental difference between not liking something and saying it hampers competition. The only thing possibly hampered by game exclusivity is the potential reach and its potential sales, but competition is improved.

Let's get that straight here. These two are different worlds entirely. Its the same thing as not liking the fact prices don't drop or reduced distribution fees aren't reflected in the product. No shit sherlock - those reduced fees offer publishers extra budget, so they can compete better on price with their content. One of the ways to do that, is for example by using that extra margin to... say... add content to a game. Pay an extra developer or two. Pocket some extra money for a future project. Also, the whole risk/reward (business case) of content production changes for the better. There is about 13% more budgettary space just by distributing through EGS over someone else.

So yes, the consumer certainly benefits if you stop looking at just price as a means of competition.

 

[Onasi]

There is about 13% more budgettary space just by distributing through EGS over someone else.

Theoretically, yeah. Assuming similar/equal volume of sales compared to releasing on multiple stores, including more established ones. Obviously, it doesn’t actually play out in this way in reality and we heard from multiple devs how releasing on Steam, for example, even after a period, dwarfed their EGS revenue. Might be different for a game that is exclusive to EGS, period. Hard to say. I don’t think we saw such a case before AWII, so this is uncharted territory. Remedy chose a risky strategy, we’ll see if it pans out.
You would also have to forgive my cynicism if I don’t really buy the whole “more money for devs/publishers translates to better games” take. Like yeah, you’d think so and it makes sense on paper, but I think that the last decade or more shows how it doesn’t actually seem to work. Otherwise ActiBlizz or, say, EA would be pumping out bangers left and right, which isn’t what’s happening.

 

[Vayra86]

Theoretically, yeah. Assuming similar/equal volume of sales compared to releasing on multiple stores, including more established ones. Obviously, it doesn’t actually play out in this way in reality and we heard from multiple devs how releasing on Steam, for example, even after a period, dwarfed their EGS revenue. Might be different for a game that is exclusive to EGS, period. Hard to say. I don’t think we saw such a case before AWII, so this is uncharted territory. Remedy chose a risky strategy, we’ll see if it pans out.
You would also have to forgive my cynicism if I don’t really buy the whole “more money for devs/publishers translates to better games” take. Like yeah, you’d think so and it makes sense on paper, but I think that the last decade or more shows how it doesn’t actually seem to work. Otherwise ActiBlizz or, say, EA would be pumping out bangers left and right, which isn’t what’s happening.

I share the pessimism, but in the end, something's gonna give and markets will move. All change and direction requires the application of sufficient pressure.
We have a history full of examples. And a history of companies trying to avoid those realities and (temporarily) succeeding at it. The world isn't perfect and it will never be.

If you look at the numbers today, and numbers never lie - EGS is not really executing on a successful strategy so far. Competitors happily let them do their thing and still compete, EGS isn't gaining much in terms of persistent market share. There you have it. Markets working as they should, and all because of consumer sentiment, despite whatever nefarious plans are concocted in board rooms. Okay, we can't play Alan Wake through the preferred platform. A small sacrifice for vibrant markets.

 

[Assimilator]

Alan Wake 2 is, and will always be available only on Epic

Yes, because Epic is the publisher, and that's a decision they've made. This is no different to Blizzard or EA or Ubisoft only offering games they publish, through their own launchers/storefronts.

 

[StormLightningSL]

That’s really the only point that Epic consistently makes that makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, you are allowed to make exclusivity deals. Yes, developers are free to take those deals. I may not like it, but it’s not in any way illegal or shady. Not dissimilar to console exclusives, and while I also don’t like those, they are a reality of the business.
But the whole margins thing… Yeah, it’s technically better for the devs. However, as a consumer, I don’t actually care. Might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. Saying that it is in any way beneficial to ME as Epic often does is weird since I still pay the same amount. They love reiterating how their policies are a “win for the customers”, but so far this is bogus. All I see as a customer is another storefront, in many ways inferior to ones I already use, that I have to go through for certain content with no benefit to myself. Again, this is fine as business move, growing market share and all that, just don’t gaslight me into believing it’s for my benefit.

The idea being propounded by Epic is that by buying on the EGS, the developer of the game you choose gets more money as compared to Steam (mainly). What Epic is hyping is that when I, as a buyer am choosing not to pirate content and prefer to pay for it, the intent is to follow the law and benefit the developer of that content. So, ideally speaking, the EGS is helping my support for the developer in becoming more effective as compared with some other store (again Steam). Edit: I believe the numbers are what @Vayra86 pointed out above.

I also recall having read online previously that Steam has developer contracts which restrict the developer from allowing any other store (read Epic, and maybe GOG) from selling that content at a lower price as compared to what is being offered on Steam, which is the primary reason Epic does not offer higher discounts, and chooses to go with offering free games as a way to attract visitors to the EGS. Admittedly the EGS environment does not compare to Steam as a storefront, but Steam took around two decades to evolve to this stage, whereas the EGS is mainstream since about 4-5 years (? Correct me if I am wrong here).

I also agree that Epic should put much more work into improving the EGS design and make it more worthwhile as a place for gamers to congregate, similar to what attracts players to the Steam app/website. But, leaving that aside, the arguments made in the case, and in the news, do have some basis in reality, even with respect to the Epic v/s Steam debate. Also, somehow I was under the impression that Epic exclusives are time-restricted and not forever deals. So, is Alan Wake 2 going to be Epic exclusive for the rest of its natural life? Could this also be because Epic may be supporting/funding the development of the content in some way because that particular content uses the Unreal Engine? I would like to know more about this.

Theoretically, yeah. Assuming similar/equal volume of sales compared to releasing on multiple stores, including more established ones. Obviously, it doesn’t actually play out in this way in reality and we heard from multiple devs how releasing on Steam, for example, even after a period, dwarfed their EGS revenue. Might be different for a game that is exclusive to EGS, period. Hard to say. I don’t think we saw such a case before AWII, so this is uncharted territory. Remedy chose a risky strategy, we’ll see if it pans out.
You would also have to forgive my cynicism if I don’t really buy the whole “more money for devs/publishers translates to better games” take. Like yeah, you’d think so and it makes sense on paper, but I think that the last decade or more shows how it doesn’t actually seem to work. Otherwise ActiBlizz or, say, EA would be pumping out bangers left and right, which isn’t what’s happening.

Come on. Activision/EA, even Blizzard, are hardly innovators in their current form. They are simply rehashing old titles with mediocre "improvements" (most of which are rejected by the gamer community). Plus, they are bit too big for that 10% odd extra income from EGS sales to really convince the executives that they need to make major changes.

But, how about smaller studios, especially indies, and developers based in countries where the currency ratio is not as much in their favor? For such smaller companies, an extra 10-15% income, which is mostly pure profit (assuming costs are covered when the pricing is first decided), would be a big motivation. I'm sure there are a lot of smaller developers who would love to pump that extra money into giving the buyer a better product - whether it is more/better content, free DLCs, maybe a new engine or a better updated UI or whatever, for the next installment of their franchise. I can offer a few examples of developers who have pumped back all the income from Stage 1 of their evolution into improving themselves in future stages for the benefit of the buyers. Obviously these developers will themselves also benefit from increased buyer interest. Two examples that immediately come to mind whom I personally support are 1. Trese Brothers (makers of ST:F and CK:F) and 2. DBK Games (makers of Spacebourne1 & 2).

I'm sure you may not be completely wrong in your cynicism, but I haven't completely given up on the "goodness" of people yet


Edit: Sorry about the big walls of posts. Somehow multiple posts are getting added to the end of my previous ones for some reason. I seem to be using the UI incorrectly.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Admittedly the EGS environment does not compare to Steam as a storefront

Cordially disagree heartily.

I'm against the idea of monopolising certain games

So you must really hate Steam, which is the exclusive distributor of thousands of games.

 

[AusWolf]

You're in the same twisted thought process as chrcoluk here: you don't want monopolized content, but you deny storefronts to actually develop differences...

No - I say, let them develop differences, but meaningful ones! Let them incentivise swapping to a new store because it's so good instead of forcing our hands by exclusives! Steam has in-home streaming, and library sharing with friends, which is what makes me buy everything I can on Steam. GOG makes DRM-free offline installers available to you which makes them my second favourite choice. "We won't let you buy your games elsewhere because f* you" is not the kind of difference I'd like to see.

The difference between a good storefront and a shitty one with exclusives is the same as the difference between "I'll give you a chocolate for $1" and "I won't kick you in the shin for $1".

But the whole margins thing… Yeah, it’s technically better for the devs. However, as a consumer, I don’t actually care. Might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. Saying that it is in any way beneficial to ME as Epic often does is weird since I still pay the same amount. They love reiterating how their policies are a “win for the customers”, but so far this is bogus. All I see as a customer is another storefront, in many ways inferior to ones I already use, that I have to go through for certain content with no benefit to myself. Again, this is fine as business move, growing market share and all that, just don’t gaslight me into believing it’s for my benefit.

Exactly! If one game is 50 quid on Steam, and 50 quid on Epic, I'll choose Steam without a second thought. I don't care how much of that money goes where. Sorry guys, but I need money to live, too, this is the harsh reality, and if I can choose to have my game on an unquestionably better service platform, damn right I will.

One more thing: I'm sure we all around the world agree that food prices have skyrocketed in recent years. It's absolutely not due to a monopolistic situation, as there's a bazillion food makers and vendors across the globe. So I don't get this "more players bring more competition" thing. It doesn't matter if there's 2, 10 or 100 players in the market, it's the market that regulates prices, not the players. No one in their right mind wants to give you anything any cheaper than the competition.

Yes, because Epic is the publisher, and that's a decision they've made. This is no different to Blizzard or EA or Ubisoft only offering games they publish, through their own launchers/storefronts.

Games made by EA, or one of their subsidiaries, being sold solely on the EA store is not the same as a third-party developer signing an exclusivity contract with the publisher who happens to operate a (quite terrible) store for some reason. If I was a developer, I'd never sign such a thing, but each to their own, I guess.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Games made by EA, or one of their subsidiaries, being sold solely on the EA store is not the same as a third-party developer signing an exclusivity contract with the publisher who happens to operate a (quite terrible) store for some reason. If I was a developer, I'd never sign such a thing, but each to their own, I guess.

The only non-timed exclusive that I am aware of is Alan Wake 2 - which is published by Epic themselves. Unlike Alan Wake 1, which was published by Microsoft.

No different than Gran Turismo 7 being a Playstation exclusive.