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

[medi01]

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.

That's a pathetic logical fallacy to begin with.
Exclusiveness on PC isn't what it sounds like, none of the gamer is forced to buy an expensive piece of hardware like it is in consoles, to play "other exclusive".
Money paid for exclusiveness is going to the game developer - good for gamers.
12% cut vs filthy Apple's 30% cut of the game sales - good for gamers.
A lot of money for exclusiveness were paid if not upfront, during the development phase and could have contributed to the development of the tiles (it definitely would in case of Sony).

What a number of gamers cannot get is seeing the bigger picture, that having two large game stores is better than having one.

Not even mentioning that GoG's client officially supports epic store.

Shopping Car

That is basically a "I'm into nonsense" signal to me.
Of all the idiotic features claimed by team "filthy apple cut is ok", the take of gamers buying games akin to grocery store is the most amusing one.

Well it sure as hell isn't 7%.

Sure as hell you have no idea what you are talking about, making such bold claims but not even being able to point out what would be the "right" number is what is pathetic.

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.

Exclusive games is pretty much the core reason one has to attract an established PC gamer base (100% are on steam) to a new platform.
Free games is another, and EPIC is using that one too.

 

[NRANM]

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.

Are you being intentionally dense?
I'm not asking you to literally speak on other people's behalf. I'm asking for an opinion for a solution. Let me provide an example. A person complains about air pollution. His suggestion for a solution is for everyone to stop driving cars, and instead to walk or use a bicycle. Regardless how good or bad of a solution that is, at least the person offers at least some suggestion for improvement.
When people shoot down every one of Epic's strategies, they do not seem to offer any ideas for better ones. That is not constructive criticism, that is just whining.

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.

I do understand what you mean, but I also suspect that you are aware you are using the wrong word, but keep using it because it makes Epic look worse. The other option is you really don't understand the difference. Just like people who refer to copyright infringement as theft.
The publisher criticism is basically limited to those whose games would have released on Steam initially, that is gamers were expecting a Steam release, and suddenly were told that the game would be a timed exclusive on Epic's store. In Phoenix Point's case, it was even more understandable, as Snapshot Games were the ones who went to Epic, not the other way round.
For games that were announced as an Epic exclusive to begin with, I remember no significant outrage. You can prove me wrong by proving links of course.

As far as DARQ's developer, I've already said (I believe also here on TPU) how I think his move was selfish and despicable. I would be happy to explain it again if necessary.

If Epic wasn't offering these bribes, or contracts as you say, the situations wouldn't occur.

And if publishers rejected the offers, the situations wouldn't occur. See? I can play this game as well.

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?"

Not offering offline installers is anti-consumer? So Steam is anti-consumer now?

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.

Again, just because you don't explicitly benefit from something, doesn't make its absence anti-consumer. Is one of my local bakeries anti-consumer for not baking the type of bread I link that is available at a different bakery?
I guess I have to spell it out because I guess in your world everything is either pro- or anti-consumer. Well, there is an area between those two. Call it neutral. If you are neither benefiting nor being hindered by a Store, then it's in the middle area.
They don't give the player incentive to come there because it's a good store? OK, what would make it a good store? Offline installers and a better refund policy? Technically those are improvements, yes, and good ones. Would they be enough to make people switch over? No.
And yes, businesses favor their own interests over consumers'. This applies to every business, including Steam.

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

That is pretty vague. I'm a consumer, and spending money to receive a product is something I would consider not favorable to me. I would prefer to get products for free. So is every business on the planet anti-consumer then? Because all businesses favor their own interests over the customers'. It's how they function. Every entity favors their own interests over others', individuals, businesses, organizations, etc.
Of course it could be the word "improperly" that makes the difference in this case, but that can mean anything.

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.

Steam doesn't need to "bribe" anyone. It is a juggernaut of a platform. I'm willing to bet money that if the roles were reversed, Valve would have adopted the same or a very similar strategy.
CD Projekt Red didn't release Cyberpunk 2077 on all stores because they love us, the gamers. They released it because on all stores because that would make them the most money.

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.

I agree that with the resources they have they could speed up the development and improvement. They are doing what they believe would be best for them in the long run.

What is also a bit funny to me is that many people who complain that Epic's launcher lacks features are also people who swear to never shop there for whatever reason. So why do they care that something is missing if they are boycotting anyway? And many of those that use the missing features as a pretense to not shop there, will switch to the exclusivity being the problem, should Epic actually add all of the functionality said users were missing. Have to keep an excuse on hand.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Exclusive games is pretty much the core reason one has to attract an established PC gamer base (100% are on steam) to a new platform.
Free games is another, and EPIC is using that one too.

I don't think this is true. I know it's not with me - I've explained in this very thread what it would take to get me to take a look at another storefront outside of my two preferred (GOG & Steam) stores, and exclusivity is definitely not one of the factors. In fact, for me, a store going the exclusivity route the way Epic is only contributes in keeping me away from the store.

Are you being intentionally dense?
I'm not asking you to literally speak on other people's behalf. I'm asking for an opinion for a solution. Let me provide an example. A person complains about air pollution. His suggestion for a solution is for everyone to stop driving cars, and instead to walk or use a bicycle. Regardless how good or bad of a solution that is, at least the person offers at least some suggestion for improvement.
When people shoot down every one of Epic's strategies, they do not seem to offer any ideas for better ones. That is not constructive criticism, that is just whining.

Really, personal attacks, I know you can do better.
I gave you my suggestion and explained specifically what it would take for me to do business at another storefront which is exactly what was asked. If you didn't like my answer, that's too bad, but I still answered your question in good detail. And you seriously asked me if I'm being dense? Give it a rest.

I do understand what you mean, but I also suspect that you are aware you are using the wrong word, but keep using it because it makes Epic look worse. The other option is you really don't understand the difference. Just like people who refer to copyright infringement as theft.
The publisher criticism is basically limited to those whose games would have released on Steam initially, that is gamers were expecting a Steam release, and suddenly were told that the game would be a timed exclusive on Epic's store. In Phoenix Point's case, it was even more understandable, as Snapshot Games were the ones who went to Epic, not the other way round.
For games that were announced as an Epic exclusive to begin with, I remember no significant outrage. You can prove me wrong by proving links of course.

As far as DARQ's developer, I've already said (I believe also here on TPU) how I think his move was selfish and despicable. I would be happy to explain it again if necessary.

Stop moving the goal posts. You made a false statement when you said "Where is the outrage aimed at the publishers/developers who have agreed to the exclusivity deals? It's nowhere to be found." I found you information on exactly what you referenced in about two minutes. You were wrong.

On DARQ's dev, you're certainly welcome to your opinion on that situation, but I personally appreciate what he did and I bought his game because of his pro consumer actions. He wanted to also sell the game on Epic but they wouldn't let him unless he agreed to exclusivity.

And if publishers rejected the offers, the situations wouldn't occur. See? I can play this game as well.

Some do - like the DARQ dev referenced above, but you called him "selfish and despicable"...

Not offering offline installers is anti-consumer? So Steam is anti-consumer now?

This is neither here nor there.

Again, just because you don't explicitly benefit from something, doesn't make its absence anti-consumer. Is one of my local bakeries anti-consumer for not baking the type of bread I link that is available at a different bakery?
I guess I have to spell it out because I guess in your world everything is either pro- or anti-consumer. Well, there is an area between those two. Call it neutral. If you are neither benefiting nor being hindered by a Store, then it's in the middle area.
They don't give the player incentive to come there because it's a good store? OK, what would make it a good store? Offline installers and a better refund policy? Technically those are improvements, yes, and good ones. Would they be enough to make people switch over? No.
And yes, businesses favor their own interests over consumers'. This applies to every business, including Steam.

I provided the official definition of what anti consumer means and then explained how Epic's current behavior fits that definition. As to your follow up questions, I have answered those in previous posts, explaining in detail how Epic could be pro consumer to a point that would even entice me to give them a try and I am not a fan of Epic. If such actions could get me to give them a try, I would imagine it would get at least a percentage of other folks to give it a try as well.

That is pretty vague. I'm a consumer, and spending money to receive a product is something I would consider not favorable to me. I would prefer to get products for free. So is every business on the planet anti-consumer then? Because all businesses favor their own interests over the customers'. It's how they function. Every entity favors their own interests over others', individuals, businesses, organizations, etc.
Of course it could be the word "improperly" that makes the difference in this case, but that can mean anything.

You'll have to take it up with Merriam-Webster. I don't create the definitions, but I think it's a pretty reasonable definition and fits Epic perfectly.

Steam doesn't need to "bribe" anyone. It is a juggernaut of a platform. I'm willing to bet money that if the roles were reversed, Valve would have adopted the same or a very similar strategy.
CD Projekt Red didn't release Cyberpunk 2077 on all stores because they love us, the gamers. They released it because on all stores because that would make them the most money.

Steam doesn't need to bribe people - they offer a good enough storefront experience that people are generally happy to use their platform. I'm sure not everyone loves them (they are my #2 storefront after GOG), but overall it's a very good storefront and I appreciate that they don't bribe publishers to lock things down - same with GOG - as you've repeatedly noted, GOG is a smaller storefront, but we don't see them trying to get companies to sign exclusivity agreements to lock out Steam or Epic. They could have done that with CP2077 since it's a 1st party game, but chose not to.

I think CD Projekt Red did it for both reasons - they generally try to be pro consumer which is why they have a pretty favorable opinion amongst gamers at large but yes no doubt they sell more copies by selling at more storefronts - that's a key reason I was surprised that Ubisoft stopped selling games at Steam and only sell now at Uplay & Epic.

I agree that with the resources they have they could speed up the development and improvement. They are doing what they believe would be best for them in the long run.

At least we agree on something.

What is also a bit funny to me is that many people who complain that Epic's launcher lacks features are also people who swear to never shop there for whatever reason. So why do they care that something is missing if they are boycotting anyway? And many of those that use the missing features as a pretense to not shop there, will switch to the exclusivity being the problem, should Epic actually add all of the functionality said users were missing. Have to keep an excuse on hand.

I don't think it's so much an excuse, as it's just the absurdity of the whole situation that people poke fun at - you've got a company that has seemingly endless monetary resources that says they want to compete with Steam, but instead of dedicating those resources to actually improving the store so people would want to go there, the store itself (launcher) is considered to be pitiful by a good chunk of gamers; lacking many of the features that Steam, the company they say they want to compete with, has. And on the flip side when you account for the insane amount of cash they are spending on bribing devs & publishers to not sell games at Steam, GOG, etc...it's like an unspoken admission that Epic knows what they are offering sucks, so the only way they think they can get people to come to their store is to make sure that customers can't go to better ones. And it's kinda funny (and sad at the same time).

 

[medi01]

I don't think this is true. I know it's not with me - I've explained in this very thread what it would take to get me to take a look at another storefront outside of my two preferred (GOG & Steam) stores, and exclusivity is definitely not one of the factors. In fact, for me, a store going the exclusivity route the way Epic is only contributes in keeping me away from the store.

That's for you.
Vast majority of gamers, however, does not surf internet seeking new software store clients to install.

Epics one of the two only things they could to attract gamers somehow "fending you off" is very unfortunate (and short sighted, but alas)

 

[NRANM]

I gave you my suggestion and explained specifically what it would take for me to do business at another storefront which is exactly what was asked.

No, that is literally not what was asked. It seems you are simply avoiding the question.

On DARQ's dev, you're certainly welcome to your opinion on that situation, but I personally appreciate what he did and I bought his game because of his pro consumer actions. He wanted to also sell the game on Epic but they wouldn't let him unless he agreed to exclusivity.

So you are one of the many who bought into his "look at how generous and noble I am" act.

Here is another question. Maybe you will answer this one. If Epic had accepted DARQ developer's offer, would you have purchased it on the Epic's store or on Steam?

This is neither here nor there.

I applied your flawed logic to Steam, but you do not like the outcome so you dismiss the argument.

I provided the official definition of what anti consumer means and then explained how Epic's current behavior fits that definition.

Well, that definition is so vague, it can be applied to every company to some extent.

You'll have to take it up with Merriam-Webster. I don't create the definitions, but I think it's a pretty reasonable definition and fits Epic perfectly.

It fits Steam, too.

Steam doesn't need to bribe people - they offer a good enough storefront experience that people are generally happy to use their platform. I'm sure not everyone loves them (they are my #2 storefront after GOG), but overall it's a very good storefront and I appreciate that they don't bribe publishers to lock things down - same with GOG - as you've repeatedly noted, GOG is a smaller storefront, but we don't see them trying to get companies to sign exclusivity agreements to lock out Steam or Epic. They could have done that with CP2077 since it's a 1st party game, but chose not to.

Yes, exactly. Steam does not need to sign exclusivity deals because 1) some developers will self-impose such restrictions, and 2) because it is the established industry standard. Steam needs to simply exist to make tons of cash. It is the newcomer that needs to use more aggressive tactics to be able to get some of Steam's market share. This is not a new phenomenon, so I really hope I don't have to explain it further or provide examples.

I think CD Projekt Red did it for both reasons - they generally try to be pro consumer which is why they have a pretty favorable opinion amongst gamers at large but yes no doubt they sell more copies by selling at more storefronts - that's a key reason I was surprised that Ubisoft stopped selling games at Steam and only sell now at Uplay & Epic.

Yes, they did it for both reasons. To the public they will claim it's because they are a pro-consumer company and love all of us gamers, etc. In reality, however, the profits are the significantly larger factor. It will always be that way. GOG may be a more pro-consumer oriented company than the rest, but they are first and foremost a business. Profits are and always will be their main objective. If they have to make a decision to do something anti-consumer for a significant profit, they will do it. They have to weigh in exactly how much their reputation can be impacted so that it doesn't hurt them long term.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

That's for you.
Vast majority of gamers, however, does not surf internet seeking new software store clients to install.

Epics one of the two only things they could to attract gamers somehow "fending you off" is very unfortunate (and short sighted, but alas)

We'll just have to disagree. I think the numbers we're seeing come out of the Epic Vs. Apple lawsuit indicate that a good percentage of folks are not supportive of Epic's practices.

No, that is literally not what was asked. It seems you are simply avoiding the question.

Here is what you asked - "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?"

And I stand by the same answer I gave you earlier. What I said would work for me is exactly what I would do if I was running a company trying to enter the market, how I would go about it and it would be pro consumer, trying to give advantages to customers while not forcing anything on them.

I think you just don't like my answer, but it's still perfectly valid.

So you are one of the many who bought into his "look at how generous and noble I am" act.

Here is another question. Maybe you will answer this one. If Epic had accepted DARQ developer's offer, would you have purchased it on the Epic's store or on Steam?

Steam, no doubt about it. As we've discussed, Epic is anti consumer and does not give customers a good reason to come to their storefront as they offer nothing that other storefronts don't already offer. This is where we circle back to my previous answers on what it would take for me to do business with Epic. If Epic offered all the items I mentioned several posts back, then they'd be pro consumer and offer what I consider to be incentivized reasons to use their storefront. Right now, they offer nothing. Steam and GOG are significantly superior storefronts, so if a game is available at all (3) storefronts, I would go to GOG first as it offers the most pro-consumer incentives. That's how this stuff works.

I applied your flawed logic to Steam, but you do not like the outcome so you dismiss the argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was neither here nor there as I said.

Well, that definition is so vague, it can be applied to every company to some extent. It fits Steam, too.

At least you agree Epic is anti consumer. That's a step.

Yes, exactly. Steam does not need to sign exclusivity deals because 1) some developers will self-impose such restrictions, and 2) because it is the established industry standard. Steam needs to simply exist to make tons of cash. It is the newcomer that needs to use more aggressive tactics to be able to get some of Steam's market share. This is not a new phenomenon, so I really hope I don't have to explain it further or provide examples.

No. Steam doesn't need to sign exclusivity deals because it doesn't try to force people to its storefront - GOG doesn't either. Epic is a semi-newcomer - so if they want to get business from Steam, they need to one-up Steam in a consumer-friendly manner - the things Steam does to keep its customers Epic would need to do bigger and better - a better storefront, better deals, better refund policies, less DRM (offline installers), etc. Simply getting your wallet out and giving money to companies to cut out better storefronts doesn't endear you to customers in large percentages. Freebies will net you a group of free loaders and maybe get people to check your store out but that wouldn't be a very reliable group to count on to spend money at the store (as we're seeing) as people who have financial challenges aren't going to have much money to spend and people who come to the store to check it out via the freebies will immediately see that it's not better than Steam and will just go back to Steam. Exclusives just annoy large groups of people when they feel like they don't get a say in where they do business.

Yes, they did it for both reasons. To the public they will claim it's because they are a pro-consumer company and love all of us gamers, etc. In reality, however, the profits are the significantly larger factor. It will always be that way. GOG may be a more pro-consumer oriented company than the rest, but they are first and foremost a business. Profits are and always will be their main objective. If they have to make a decision to do something anti-consumer for a significant profit, they will do it. They have to weigh in exactly how much their reputation can be impacted so that it doesn't hurt them long term.

And that's totally okay with me - as long as the customer benefits, I don't mind the company netting profits from it at all, they provide a service after all. Now if they start doing anti consumer things that affect customers negatively then that has to be re-evaluated, but ultimately I look at my relationship with stores like GOG & Steam and I consider them a symbiotic relationship overall - I don't mind giving them money as long as they're providing me with good features, deals, and incentives to keep doing business there. That's a healthy customer / seller relationship, IMO.

Ultimately the whole Epic thing just comes down to the way they are going about trying to take Steam's customers and I personally think they could go about it better as I've described.

 

[medi01]

I think the numbers we're seeing come out of the Epic Vs. Apple lawsuit indicate that a good percentage of folks are not supportive of Epic's practices.

Dude, could you focus on a single point, instead of jumping around?

Gamers do not surf internet seeking new game stores to install clients from.
Which numbers that "we are seeing come out of lawsuit" show otherwise?

Most gamers fail to grasp that Steam is a problem and Steam getting real competitor is good for the industry (and so would be dropping from filthy Apple 30% cut to 12%). Most gamers also bought power hungry, slower and more expensive P4 Prescott over Athlon 64, laughed at inventor of umbrella, laughed at inventor of microscope and stop short of behaving like lemmings.

Anyhow, PR spin and fighting off idiocy is indeed one of the main challenges that EGS faces.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Dude, could you focus on a single point, instead of jumping around?

Gamers do not surf internet seeking new game stores to install clients from.
Which numbers that "we are seeing come out of lawsuit" show otherwise?

Most gamers fail to grasp that Steam is a problem and Steam getting real competitor is good for the industry (and so would be dropping from filthy Apple 30% cut to 12%). Most gamers also bought power hungry, slower and more expensive P4 Prescott over Athlon 64, laughed at inventor of umbrella, laughed at inventor of microscope and stop short of behaving like lemmings.

Anyhow, PR spin and fighting off idiocy is indeed one of the main challenges that EGS faces.

lol relax my dude, I'm conversatin' here with about 5 different people across several threads so give me a break.

The main stat I was referencing is in post #3.

I'm not at all opposed to Steam getting competition; competition usually benefits gamers. Steam is my #2 storefront, I prefer GOG the best.

The issue as it pertains to Epic is that Epic doesn't offer competition. What they are doing doesn't benefit the consumer. That's one of the items I've been discussing with another poster here in this thread - what I would be looking for from Epic that would act as a proper incentive to get me to look at a 3rd storefront over GOG & Steam. The problem is Epic isn't really trying to beat those stores in the referenced areas, they're just throwing money at development companies and getting them to cut out Steam & GOG by not allowing a game to be sold at those stores and I don't consider that a benefit.

 

[NRANM]

Here is what you asked - "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?"

Yes, I asked what would be pro-consumer strategy that Epic can adopt to become a competitor. You described what you personally want, not what you believe would work for most people and would be enough to make enough of them switch over. Or do you believe that offering offline installers + a better refund policy would indeed suffice for that?

Steam, no doubt about it. As we've discussed, Epic is anti consumer and does not give customers a good reason to come to their storefront as they offer nothing that other storefronts don't already offer. This is where we circle back to my previous answers on what it would take for me to do business with Epic. If Epic offered all the items I mentioned several posts back, then they'd be pro consumer and offer what I consider to be incentivized reasons to use their storefront. Right now, they offer nothing. Steam and GOG are significantly superior storefronts, so if a game is available at all (3) storefronts, I would go to GOG first as it offers the most pro-consumer incentives. That's how this stuff works.

So you are confirming my theory. If Epic accepted the offer from DARQ's developer and virtually no money would've gone to charity because everyone would've purchased the game on Steam, not Epic. DARQ's developer got a good amount of positive coverage how generous and noble he is, and also got a nice boost to his earnings due to many people purchasing the game solely to support this amazing individual. Charity got squat. He basically dangled charity like a carrot in front of everyone, and people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

It wasn't an argument, it was neither here nor there as I said.

Yes it was, it was just an inconvenient one.
You said that if you are not benefiting from something, then it is anti-consumer. Steam doesn't offer offline installers for you to benefit from, thus it is anti-consumer.

At least you agree Epic is anti consumer. That's a step.

No. I agreed to no such thing.
I pointed out that if we use that incredibly vague definition, then anything can be labeled as anti-consumer, including Steam. So either both are anti-consumer, or neither is. I subscribe to the latter.

Steam doesn't need to sign exclusivity deals because it doesn't try to force people to its storefront

Of course it doesn't. Steam is the reigning champion at the moment. Valve can afford to do nothing, and still they will forge ahead. I will even go this far: Valve can stop having sales, and/or eliminate their refund policy entirely, and/or eliminate their support department, and they will still be virtually as successful. For some reason Valve has been engrained so much in people's heads as the company that cares and has done so much for gaming, whereas Epic has been smeared and vilified as this greedy, evil company that has done nothing for the industry, that even if Valve abandoned all or most of its "pro-consumer" features, people will still buy their games there. They would be scared to go to a different place, there be dragons there.

Epic would need to do bigger and better - a better storefront, better deals, better refund policies, less DRM (offline installers), etc.

Yes, those things would be great, but I reckon Epic has calculated that even with those features in place they would still not be able to compete with Steam as those would not be enough to incentivize people to switch, hence the exclusive games and the freebies they give away.
Also, I'm not sure if offline installers are even possible. Not for AAA games at least. I sincerely doubt publishers would allow their new AAA titles to be distributed DRM-free. Several years later, maybe, like it is with GOG. Maybe some smaller or indie developers or publishers might agree to DRM-free installers but the big boys would most likely say no.

The issue as it pertains to Epic is that Epic doesn't offer competition.

Yes, it does. Technically, it is competition. It's just small small at the moment, but hopefully it will grow. The goal is to force Steam to change and improve. To achieve this, Epic needs to be large enough on the market so that Valve considers it a threat. How Epic gets to that position is basically irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Yes, I asked what would be pro-consumer strategy that Epic can adopt to become a competitor. You described what you personally want, not what you believe would work for most people and would be enough to make enough of them switch over. Or do you believe that offering offline installers + a better refund policy would indeed suffice for that?

Those are the obvious things, sure, you identity the strengths of your competitor and try to one-up them and also find things that maybe haven't been tried or thought of before that people will like and appreciate. It'd also be worth their time to research by way of survey / interviews with active gamers, potentially even professional ones who have social media channels with millions of followers on what they and their followers would want to see from a storefront that would entice them to give that storefront a try. Based on the responses, you'd identify the most meaningful items across the board and implement them.

So you are confirming my theory. If Epic accepted the offer from DARQ's developer and virtually no money would've gone to charity because everyone would've purchased the game on Steam, not Epic. DARQ's developer got a good amount of positive coverage how generous and noble he is, and also got a nice boost to his earnings due to many people purchasing the game solely to support this amazing individual. Charity got squat. He basically dangled charity like a carrot in front of everyone, and people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

It's actually confirming what I've said all along - people aren't going to 'choose' to go to Epic as it sits currently because it's not a good storefront. Exclusives don't garner loyalty - giving people good features, pricing, not trying to force them into anything, all these things help generate good-will.

Yes it was, it was just an inconvenient one.
You said that if you are not benefiting from something, then it is anti-consumer. Steam doesn't offer offline installers for you to benefit from, thus it is anti-consumer.

That's not what I said.

Here's what I said: "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."

You took what I said out of context, likely because arguing against my full statement said would have been too...inconvenient. The entire sentence there matters and is pretty clear when read as a whole - by locking customers out of better storefronts they take away the freedom the customer would have had. The portion on offering no favorable reason to come there is used in comparison to the anti consumer behavior - the strong-arming attempt by Epic in place of offering a customer favorable incentives is very anti consumer.

No. I agreed to no such thing.
I pointed out that if we use that incredibly vague definition, then anything can be labeled as anti-consumer, including Steam. So either both are anti-consumer, or neither is. I subscribe to the latter.

Relax, it was tongue in cheek - an attempt to inject some light-heartedness - we aren't going to agree on this, so just trying to make light of it for a moment.

Of course it doesn't. Steam is the reigning champion at the moment. Valve can afford to do nothing, and still they will forge ahead. I will even go this far: Valve can stop having sales, and/or eliminate their refund policy entirely, and/or eliminate their support department, and they will still be virtually as successful. For some reason Valve has been engrained so much in people's heads as the company that cares and has done so much for gaming, whereas Epic has been smeared and vilified as this greedy, evil company that has done nothing for the industry, that even if Valve abandoned all or most of its "pro-consumer" features, people will still buy their games there. They would be scared to go to a different place, there be dragons there.

Eh, not sure what people at large would do under such a scenario. I can tell you, for me personally, if Steam say, got rid of refund options, that would affect me significantly, especially on higher dollar games. If a game wasn't available on GOG where I prefer my games, but was available on Steam, I'd probably opt out of the game for a while, maybe check out a "somewhere else" copy to make sure the game didn't have major issues, etc. as I've been burned before buying games that I couldn't refund and that will never happen again. I'm very thankful for the refund options, especially on GOG with a 30 day return policy.

Yes, those things would be great, but I reckon Epic has calculated that even with those features in place they would still not be able to compete with Steam as those would not be enough to incentivize people to switch, hence the exclusive games and the freebies they give away.
Also, I'm not sure if offline installers are even possible. Not for AAA games at least. I sincerely doubt publishers would allow their new AAA titles to be distributed DRM-free. Several years later, maybe, like it is with GOG. Maybe some smaller or indie developers or publishers might agree to DRM-free installers but the big boys would most likely say no.

The thing with Epic and offline installers is even if they couldn't deliver those for AAA titles (because I do agree with you here) but did whenever possible, they'd at minimum match GOG there and would just need to one-up GOG on the refund policy. For Steam, they NEVER offer offline installers, so if Epic started doing that for games that had no-DRM, that would be a very large positive in their favor - if I ever read that headline, I would be in shock, and my opinion of Epic would rise significantly as that would tell me very clearly that they're trying to change for the better and garner good will. And when companies make an effort, I really respect that and will generally give them a chance.

Yes, it does. Technically, it is competition. It's just small small at the moment, but hopefully it will grow. The goal is to force Steam to change and improve. To achieve this, Epic needs to be large enough on the market so that Valve considers it a threat. How Epic gets to that position is basically irrelevant.

I disagree - I just don't see it as competition when one company has to literally pay publishers to not do business with superior storefronts. I mean Epic has been at it for several years now with some big titles, and it doesn't seem to be working. That strategy, to me, just screams desperation and an admission of inferiority making me not want to ever do business with such a company. This type of strategy just rubs people the wrong way, and I think more people will either pirate games that go Epic exclusive or they'll just wait out the exclusivity time period and buy it at their preferred storefront. People don't like to feel like they're being bullied into something. I think Epic should concentrate their efforts on improving their storefront and work on better incentives and policies to get customers to WANT to do business with Epic.

If Epic ever wants my business they have to give me a legit reason to do business with them, and exclusives are just not going to work and I know many folks who feel the same way. Maybe it'll happen in time, guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[medi01]

The issue as it pertains to Epic is that Epic doesn't offer competition. What they are doing doesn't benefit the consumer.

Epic does:
1) Offer free games => direct benefit to the consumer
2) Try to bribe Sony into bringing more exclusives to PCs => again to the benefit of consumers
3) Pour money into game studios, for exclusive deals => zero harm to consumers (don't make me laugh about the need to install client), more money for game development
4) All that for the overall goal of competing with Steam with 12% vs 30% cut being the major talking point => again to the benefit of cosumers, as more money going to game studios is better

Epic isn't really trying to beat those stores in the referenced areas

The niche features that most people do not need (shopping card, seriously? Is it a grocery tore) is a dishonest nitpicking.
It lets you install games, buy games, update games, it supports cloud saves.
It even officially supports GoG client's integration.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Epic does:
1) Offer free games => direct benefit to the consumer
2) Try to bribe Sony into bringing more exclusives to PCs => again to the benefit of consumers
3) Pour money into game studios, for exclusive deals => zero harm to consumers (don't make me laugh about the need to install client), more money for game development
4) All that for the overall goal of competing with Steam with 12% vs 30% cut being the major talking point => again to the benefit of cosumers, as more money going to game studios is better

I should have been more specific with that statement, that's on me - I was thinking about the exclusives but worded too broadly, so sorry about that. There are some items I do think are good things that Epic does like when they give out coupons, and sales are always good no matter what storefront we're talking about - I don't hate every individual thing about Epic. I think the free games from years ago are kinda silly - I mean I guess you'll maybe pull in some people who are very financially limited and couldn't buy those games back when they were released, but for me, personally there wasn't a single game they gave away that I didn't already have from years ago or just wasn't interested in.

I'm not big on the bribes - I mean I'm glad Sony (and Microsoft with the Halo collection - I was happy to buy that for full price on Steam) is bringing some games to PC (HZD came to Steam last year which was nice to see), but I'd never advocate bribing them as I'm not a fan of exclusives to begin with - companies should just release games on all storefronts and platforms. More people will buy them and it's good for people to have options - when studios make games exclusive to certain platforms they're just quite literally throttling their own sales.

I'd disagree on your point #3 - it's still going to be forcing exclusives which aren't a good thing, in my opinion. That will never get me to move to Epic, if anything it will just ensure I never go there. As far as installing the client, go ahead and laugh, a lot of people are tired of installing all these different launchers - that's why offline installers would be a huge boon - seriously, if Epic started offering offline installers so that you didn't have to install their client and exceeded GOG's refund policies (which are currently the best in the business) - they would literally move to my #1 storefront ahead of both GOG & Steam, but so far what they're offering does not compete with GOG & Steam in my book, they are way behind.

Point 4 (and 3 regarding money), I'd disagree - on paper it sounds good, but in reality, we see studios like Gearbox who had promised their devs bonuses after Borderlands 3 and then Randy Pitchford reneged and screwed them over - all that 12% vs 30% does it make the people at the top richer, there hasn't been any evidence that I've seen to indicate it benefits gamers. Don't ever feel bad for these studios, they make plenty of money, and it's generally an issue of greed at the top more than anything else that drives these things.

The niche features that most people do not need (shopping card, seriously? Is it a grocery tore) is a dishonest nitpicking.
It lets you install games, buy games, update games, it supports cloud saves.
It even officially supports GoG client's integration.

You know, I'm one that honestly doesn't give a crap about the shopping cart, although it is funny to point out because it's such a basic feature. They drop a billion dollars on exclusives but can't add a simple shopping cart? It's like they know not many people buy much there so why bother.

For me it's features like messageboards that I value over a shopping cart (only time I use the shopping cart on Steam is when there's a seasonal sale and I have multiple games on my wishlist I want to pick up). I use the Steam messageboards every single day. And I have seen people from Epic come over to discuss issues from Epic's own store on Steam's boards which just makes it even funnier. A billion dollars for exclusives, but can't add messageboards to help your users share solutions to issues and discuss games so instead your customers have to go to a better storefront to discuss problems on your own store...just...no.

At the end of the day Epic just doesn't bring enough to the table for me to even consider them a valid competing option versus GOG & Steam. GOG is the best because of their refund policy, which again, is the best in the business paired with offline installers. Steam is #2 due to the feature rich storefront they provide via their client. Epic...has a long way to go...they have the monetary resources to do pretty much whatever they want, and rather than match the incentives of these other stores, they think the best route is exclusives...well, it's their money. Maybe it'll work in the long run on enough people to make them happy. It'll never work on me.

I do appreciate your arguments though, I don't disagree with everything, you did provide some good points for discussion and I do agree with some of what you had to say.

 

[medi01]

They drop a billion dollars on exclusives but can't add a simple shopping cart?

That is not how software projects normally work.
There is a list of a backlog items.
And features in that list get prioritized.

I don't think a sane person would give "shopping card, kinda like if you are in a grocery store" high priority.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

That is not how software projects normally work.
There is a list of a backlog items.
And features in that list get prioritized.

I don't think a sane person would give "shopping card, kinda like if you are in a grocery store" high priority.

Like I said, the shopping cart isn't a huge deal to me personally, but with the type of money they are dropping in other areas, and the fact that it's literally been years since it was originally requested, features do not appear to be a priority at Epic in general. Their money is going toward other things.

 

[medi01]

Their money is going toward other things.

"You are rich, so you should spend money on every feature imaginable" is a strange approach.

Would "shopping cart" bring in more customers? I so doubt it.
Would free games/exclusives? Hell yes.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

"You are rich, so you should spend money on every feature imaginable" is a strange approach.

Would "shopping cart" bring in more customers? I so doubt it.
Would free games/exclusives? Hell yes.

Not sure why you're so hung up on this shopping cart thing, but it's actually not a strange approach - if a company says 'hey we want to compete with Steam' then I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they should probably try to match and even exceed the features of Steam if they want customers to actually migrate from Steam to their storefront.