Epic Games Store Keeps Losing Money, Expected Unprofitable Until 2027, Even with a Massive $500 Million Investment Behind It

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

Even with the amounts of good karma EGS gained giving dozens (hundreds?) of games for free, and actively funding indie studio game development projects, somehow many people still view it as evil incarnate. Astounding how this stupid double standard with Valve's steam keeps existing.

Yeah, i heard they funded Remedy's entertainment Alan Wake 2 project and will publish it, a cult classic a game that many requested a sequel for.
But noooo, EPIC BAD HURAMPH HURAMPH !!!

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah, i heard they funded Remedy's entertainment Alan Wake 2 project and will publish it, a cult classic a game that many requested a sequel for.
But noooo, EPIC BAD HURAMPH HURAMPH !!!

Come on man, you know how it works. Whiners going to whine. That's how they roll.

 

[AusWolf]

I think you have some very, very, very skewed ideas of the power relations in play here. "Destroying Valve" is a ludicrous idea given their size and entrenched market position. Epic has made essentially zero inroads on this. Also, bribery? By giving away games? Is there a condition of not buying games off Steam attached to the giveaway? Because otherwise it can't be a bribe... As for market manipulation: again, that requires having the power to meaningfully affect the market. So far there's zero indication of this being the case. While Valve isn't a publicly traded company and we thus know nothing specific about their finances, they are massively, overwhelmingly profitable, and there is no reason to believe this is changing.

To me, that sounds like a very low bar for an outright boycott. Which begs the question of biases affecting the decision. I completely understand people having a positive view of Steam - it's been an incredibly useful application for a long time after all - but I don't see how that can extend to a default negative view of alternatives unless they offer something meaningfully different beyond variety. That's outright irrational. Steam being a reasonably good application doesn't make anyone not at feature parity automatically bad, especially considering the 15-year development advantage. I would love it if EGS had remote play and a few other features, but ... meh. It's really not a big deal (and there's always AMD Link). And given the popularity of Discord and other third party apps for social features and the like, neither does it seem like it is for a huge swathe of "gamers". If Alt+Tabing out of games was such a huge deal, those apps wouldn't be as popular as they are. Of course Discord has a launcher-agnostic in-game overlay, entirely bypassing issues like that.

Btw, you comparing using EGS at all to biking or walking 12 miles to work rather than driving - that necessitates some fleshing out. How much do you use Steam's in-game features? How often? In how large a percentage of the games you play? Are you constantly using Steam chat, browsing the forums, or doing something else with the overlay? If not ... then all you're doing is demonstrating bias. If using another launcher for some games feels like that much of a hassle for you, that's a mental block on your side, not an issue with the launcher, particularly when you are already using several others.

As for EGS bringing "absolutely no value to [you]", well ... a lot of people would say free high quality games constitute something of value, as does a competitive game sales market. Or just more sales, coupons, and opportunities to get games cheaper? Some of us would even say that fairer compensation to game developers is valuable too, though that is of course less tangible and directly beneficial to customers in the short term. But again, your bias is showing.

If I'm biased towards something, it's the practice of keeping my PC as clutter-free as possible. A new program that essentially does the same thing as another program is clutter. I'm not saying no to EGS. I'm saying no to any program that doesn't offer anything more than the ones I already have.

Maybe my 12-mile example was a little radical. Here's another one: I drive a Ford Fiesta ST. People have asked me why I don't drive a "normal" car like a Corolla to commute and something like an MX-5 (Miata) for weekends? My answer is simplicity: having one car that does it all is easier to maintain (and cheaper too, but that's another story).

Or my phone: I have a Samsung Galaxy A20e. When it dies, I'll probably buy another cheap Samsung. Am I a Samsung fanboy? No. I totally hate the way they refresh their whole range every year just because they can. My reason is the seamless transferring of apps and data between Samsung phones. Do I think there are other good phones on the market? Totally! Do I want one? No (I don't even want another Samsung to be fair).

Or my graphics cards: I currently have an RTX 2070 in my main PC, a GT 710 in my HTPC, and another GT 710 and a GTX 1050 Ti in the drawer. Did I buy them because I'm an nvidia fanboy? No. I found the 2070 cheap on ebay, the 710 is a category that's totally alien to AMD nowadays, and the Palit 1050 Ti KalmX is one of the fastest cards with passive cooling - a real curiosity. I didn't buy them because they're nvidia. I bought them because they are/were the best GPU available for my intended purpose. To prove my point: I also had an RX 5700 XT and I loved it. Do I want one again? No. I'm currently happy with the 2070.

Just because I'm happy with with what I have doesn't make me biased towards any brand.

And my entire point of the "how good would that feature need to be?" rhetorical question was to illustrate that it's really damn hard to come up with something like that. What would it be, exactly? Can you name something that your gaming experience is sorely lacking right now? Or something brand-new, never heard of before that would tangibly improve it? Something that would convince you that EGS is valuable? Because that's an impossible ask for a single feature. And, again, given both your demonstrated bias and what the hate campaign against them has shown, adding a feature that Steam already has would do nothing to shift things in their favour - rather, it would likely be mocked and derided as a me-too effort, copying Steam, etc.

First I had Steam and I didn't need anything else. Then came GOG with their good old games that I used to love as a child, with DOSbox integrated into their client and no copy protection. I had no idea I needed something like that, but when it hit, I thought it was brilliant and I absolutely loved it (and still do). The point is: you don't have to fulfil a need. You need to find something that people secretly want. I know it's terribly hard, but that's the key to success. Being mediocre isn't.

And again, as to "outweighing what Epic has to offer" - the main point is a storefront, no? A place to get access to games? I'll gladly admit that the EGS application is ... pretty mediocre. But so what? It covers the basics, lets me buy, download, update and play games. That's the important part. Everything else is a bonus. You're of course welcome to value other features higher than I do, but again, treating those as make-or-break features of a game storefront and launcher is ... pretty out there. Even social features, important as they are. There are free, functional and trivial to use alternatives. And the "not a single pro comes to mind" line of thinking just shows that you're not starting from a baseline of "choice is good for us" or anything like that, but a tacit support of monopolism as it provides everything you need. Which is deeply, deeply problematic.

And why exactly would I need just another generic storefront to clutter my PC when I can do the exact same things with GOG or Steam?

Also, the "don't mention revenues and where the money goes, because those things are ultimately useless facts for the average gamer" line - I would really hope for a tad more perspective than that. Does it help gamers when buying games, here and now? Obviously not. But is it beneficial to gaming overall in the long term? Absolutely. Or are you actually saying that you're entirely fine with developers - the people actually making the games! - getting a maximum of 70% of the sales price (though likely less as publishers also take a significant cut), with 30% (seriously, consider that this is nearly 1/3rd of the price!) going to the company providing the storefront, file hosting, cloud saves, a chat function and some forums? Is that fair in your mind? Are those features worth nearly a third of the money for every single game you buy? Because if so ... that's stunning to me. Utterly and completely incomprehensible. Even if the infrastructure you build is fantastic, it does not deserve 30% of the price of anything sold through that infrastructure. That's an absurd idea. What that massively skewed split does, is enrich the owners of Valve, allow them to operate as a "game developer" despite making ... what, a single semi-notable game in the last decade? and let them rest on their laurels while their account balances balloon. Sure, they do some good stuff. The Steam Deck is really cool (I'm signed up for a 512GB one, and in this case think Valve is indeed actually providing something of value), and over the past 17 years Steam has gained a decent collection of good features. But have they actually deserved 30% of everything you have ever spent there? That's absurd. In my case - and I don't have the biggest Steam library by any stretch of the imagination - that would amount to nearly 350€ over the past 13 years (I know I had a Steam account prior to 2008 as well, but apparently not with this email). Has Valve deserved 350€ of my money in that time? ~2€ a month? For a tiny amount of server bandwidth and (mostly) some extremely basic software, developed long ago? Not even close. The value for money in the features provided is terrible. And knowing the vast majority of that money goes straight into their pockets, giving nothing of value back to me? That's a travesty. That's why I welcome competition. And why I'm very, very positive towards any efforts towards directing that money towards the people actually making the games. Why? Because they are the ones providing value to me, not the platform owners.

I acknowledge this as a valid argument, though a weak one. Most people don't care where the money goes. They only care about two things: how much do I pay, and what do I get for it. Besides, there's no guarantee that what you pay on EGS actually reaches the developers. Revenues can be a marketing gimmick too. I personally do not believe that any reseller has any other purpose than making money. The only way they differ is their methods: Steam is omnipresent, GOG offers lots of old-school games and no DRM, and Epic makes titles exclusive to make sure you don't have a choice. To me that's dirty AF.

 

[NRANM]

Epic free game exclusives are to lure people to software distribution platform that is underdeveloped, when there is literally no other reason to go to the platform beyond free games, and Fortnite.

In a way, yes, although I wouldn't use the word "lure".

This strategy is necessary because it is effective. Epic (or any emerging storefront) needs to accumulate an user base in order to become a competitor to Steam. Epic offering the exact same thing as Steam will change nothing. Due to magnitude of monopoly that Steam has, more aggressive methods are required.

You don't like exclusives. Fine. I'm going to ask you point blank. What is your suggestion for an alternative strategy that would be as effective but "less shady"? What would YOU have done in Epic's place?

I'm asking because a criticism without a suggested solution is just whining.

For your second paragraph, you are just making the Linux versus Windows argument. "I don't need all of the features; I just need to be able to play games."

No, I am not. Nowhere did I mention neither Windows, nor Linux. You are creating a straw man argument.
I was pointing out that Epic's launcher, while not as feature rich as Valve's, is perfectly capable of doing the main thing any game launcher should be able to do, which is sufficient for many users.

It seemed to me that you were presenting the lack of additional features as something objectively negative that impacts all users who create an Epic account, which it isn't. It is subjective, as not everyone needs the extra features that Steam offers. I myself am one of them. I acknowledge that Steam offers more functionality but I don't need it. Of course, just because I don't, doesn't mean others don't either, however, this goes both ways: just because there are people who use Steam's extra features doesn't mean that everyone else does or should.

On a side note, I'm convinced that a large portion of Epic's detractors who claim underdevelopment would simply find way to dismiss the addition of any missing features. For example, if Epic added a friends list, people would say that it's just copying steam or that other, better solutions exist (like Discord). Thus further proving that some people are not really criticizing but are just whining or even downright hating on competiont.

Speaking of which, it may be prudent to start many discussions on the topic of Steam and Epic with a question to all of Epic's critics if they believe competition is a good or a bad thing, because based on many user's opinions and arguments (or lack thereof) I'm starting to suspect that a good portion of Epic's opponents may believe competition is not necessary or maybe even detrimental.

 

[Ravenas]

In a way, yes, although I wouldn't use the word "lure".

This strategy is necessary because it is effective. Epic (or any emerging storefront) needs to accumulate an user base in order to become a competitor to Steam. Epic offering the exact same thing as Steam will change nothing. Due to magnitude of monopoly that Steam has, more aggressive methods are required.

You don't like exclusives. Fine. I'm going to ask you point blank. What is your suggestion for an alternative strategy that would be as effective but "less shady"? What would YOU have done in Epic's place?

I'm asking because a criticism without a suggested solution is just whining.


No, I am not. Nowhere did I mention neither Windows, nor Linux. You are creating a straw man argument.
I was pointing out that Epic's launcher, while not as feature rich as Valve's, is perfectly capable of doing the main thing any game launcher should be able to do, which is sufficient for many users.

It seemed to me that you were presenting the lack of additional features as something objectively negative that impacts all users who create an Epic account, which it isn't. It is subjective, as not everyone needs the extra features that Steam offers. I myself am one of them. I acknowledge that Steam offers more functionality but I don't need it. Of course, just because I don't, doesn't mean others don't either, however, this goes both ways: just because there are people who use Steam's extra features doesn't mean that everyone else does or should.

On a side note, I'm convinced that a large portion of Epic's detractors who claim underdevelopment would simply find way to dismiss the addition of any missing features. For example, if Epic added a friends list, people would say that it's just copying steam or that other, better solutions exist (like Discord). Thus further proving that some people are not really criticizing but are just whining or even downright hating on competiont.

Speaking of which, it may be prudent to start many discussions on the topic of Steam and Epic with a question to all of Epic's critics if they believe competition is a good or a bad thing, because based on many user's opinions and arguments (or lack thereof) I'm starting to suspect that a good portion of Epic's opponents may believe competition is not necessary or maybe even detrimental.

When did I say I they should change their strategy or that they should develop a better strategy? You are so far into your defensive positioning that you are assuming positions of others. Calm.

The strategy is obvious, and I'm not telling anyone to change it or recommend another one. I'm stating the EGS is underdeveloped in comparison to other stores and doesn't offer a full featured experience in comparison to Steam. For that reason, there is no reason to use it.

You are also assuming I want EGS to fail or I am against them. That's not the case either. I am simply stating I am not going to use the platform because it offers me nothing additional due to its current state. If they improve by 2027 as the article states, then I will reconsider and will likely reconsider multiple times before then. It may also be the case that Epic releases a game that I truly find fun to play, other than Fortnite which I think is a flavor of the month type game that is becoming diulted due to every AAA offering the same game mode now.

 

[Arc1t3ct]

EPIC Games Store is AWESOME! I'm trully grateful for all the FREE games they've given me over the years!

 

[AusWolf]

In a way, yes, although I wouldn't use the word "lure".

This strategy is necessary because it is effective. Epic (or any emerging storefront) needs to accumulate an user base in order to become a competitor to Steam. Epic offering the exact same thing as Steam will change nothing. Due to magnitude of monopoly that Steam has, more aggressive methods are required.

You don't like exclusives. Fine. I'm going to ask you point blank. What is your suggestion for an alternative strategy that would be as effective but "less shady"? What would YOU have done in Epic's place?

I'm asking because a criticism without a suggested solution is just whining.

Let me drop my 2 cents point blank (as I did before): the most effective strategy is innovation. Nobody needs another generic storefront with exclusives. Nobody needs a Steam-copy either. What Epic needs to be successful (imo) is a unique idea that makes them stand out of the crowd.

GOG is a perfect example: they started out by offering near forgotten classic games with no copy protection. It's something that no one has done before and still no one does. It made a difference in the market and it's genius.

Epic needs to find that secret need that gamers want but don't know about yet. They need to offer something extra. They need to carve a new slice out of the market instead of trying to take a piece out of someone else's slice. That's it.

 

[NRANM]

The strategy is obvious, and I'm not telling anyone to change it or recommend another one. I'm stating the EGS is underdeveloped in comparison to other stores and doesn't offer a full featured experience in comparison to Steam. For that reason, there is no reason to use it.

If Epic offers an exclusive game that Steam doesn't or the price is better (due to high discount and/or additional coupon), and the user does not need the extra features that Steam has, then that is a reason to use the Epic store and launcher.
Stop projecting your preferences and opinions on other people.

Let me drop my 2 cents point blank (as I did before): the most effective strategy is innovation. Nobody needs another generic storefront with exclusives. Nobody needs a Steam-copy either. What Epic needs to be successful (imo) is a unique idea that makes them stand out of the crowd.

That is a pretty vague suggestion. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

Also, the bolded part further cements that even if Epic's launcher reached parity with Steam's functionality, it would still be deemed unworthy. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", I guess.

GOG is a perfect example: they started out by offering near forgotten classic games with no copy protection. It's something that no one has done before and still no one does. It made a difference in the market and it's genius.

GOG is great but it's hardly a Steam competitor. Yes, it has its niche and audience, but it cannot challenge Steam's entrenched position, and it doesn't seem to be trying either. It seems CDPR are content with how GOG has been positioned on the market. If that is the case, awesome! My point is that the innovation GOG provided did not result in it being a true competitor to Steam.
I suspect Epic's goals go beyond having a small niche, which is fine and even welcomed.

Epic needs to find that secret need that gamers want but don't know about yet. They need to offer something extra. They need to carve a new slice out of the market instead of trying to take a piece out of someone else's slice.

Any suggestions or ideas? No?

And no, they cannot carve a slice of the market without taking from someone else's. A person who purchases a game from one store would most likely not purchase it a second time from another. If a user purchases a game from Epic and not Steam, that is essentially Epic taking from Steam's slice.
To me a "new slice" would imply that Epic need to find new customers, those who are not already Steam's or anyone else's customers, which basically means people who have just discovered that gaming and game stores exist. While there are undoubtedly such people, it is incredibly naïve to believe that they would be sufficient to allow Epic to become a true competitor to Steam.

 

[Vayra86]

Let me drop my 2 cents point blank (as I did before): the most effective strategy is innovation. Nobody needs another generic storefront with exclusives. Nobody needs a Steam-copy either. What Epic needs to be successful (imo) is a unique idea that makes them stand out of the crowd.

GOG is a perfect example: they started out by offering near forgotten classic games with no copy protection. It's something that no one has done before and still no one does. It made a difference in the market and it's genius.

Epic needs to find that secret need that gamers want but don't know about yet. They need to offer something extra. They need to carve a new slice out of the market instead of trying to take a piece out of someone else's slice. That's it.

They did, the slice is called exclusivity and a quality pass Steam doesn't have. Another one is enabling development of specific titles, funneling or adding to available budget to make things happen. Only time will tell if they keep that up and in what way.

So again.. judge the games, not the stores.

 

[Valantar]

Hey , Isn't EGS kept losing money shown exactly 12% cut isn't enough for running the platform at that scale?

And
Don't forget why EPIC wanna fight for the 12% in the first place.
Still remember how they break T&C with Apple / Google ?

They just want more cut in their Fortnite microtransaction , and more revenue cut from Unreal Engine Licensing.

That's ... a pretty misunderstood take. Their losses don't come from the 12% cut being insufficient for maintaining the store and its necessary infrastructure, their losses come from exclusivity deals, guaranteed minimum payments to developers, free game giveaways, and other strategies to attract developers and customers both. Your argument is precisely the one Apple is trying to make, and one that is extremely selective in its logic. The only possible fair comparison would be with a normalized level of giveaways/developer buyouts/exclusivity deals etc, seeing how EGS has been doing that at a rate much higher than anyone else.

There's plenty of competition on the market, Epic included. You missed the point in your effort to try to defend your own position. There is nothing wrong with competition, or the existence of EGS. There just isn't a reason to use Epic over Steam, at all. The EGS is in beta and will be in that stage until 2025 - 2027. The attraction is Fortnite, and the rest is just luring users to an underdeveloped platform by offering free games.

The point isn't anti-competition, the point is why use the underdeveloped beta platform? You are being under-served by EGS; the lower commissions reflect that. Epic isn't Robinhood trying to save the game developers from the tyrannical 30% commission fees. How else would the attract developers to a new and beta software distribution platform? It's no different than a lot of die-hard Linux, anti-MS fans... Going out of their way to avoid all MS products, at the sacrifice of their own workflow or usability.

Go ahead, write paragraph after paragraph of words defending your position like you have done so in this thread, the point remains and can't be undone at this time. EGS is a beta platform which is years, decades behind the competition. If it makes you feel better, then use it. Just isn't logical in my opinion.

But that's the thing: how relevant is this "underdevelopedness" to me as a gamer? I can buy, download and run games, I get cloud synced saves, and that's pretty much all I need. Sure, there are other things that would be nice to have, but none are essential. So if EGS provides good value, free games, better prices (at times, with sales or coupons, though also obviously worse at times), why not use them as well as the others?

IMO, none of EGS's "beta-ness" matters much. If it does to you, I would love to hear how and why. If not, then I'll have to assume you're blowing things out of proportion, as I have nothing else on which to base my beliefs.

Also ... I'm not defending EGS so much as I'm arguing against people arguing against it. The people you mention, die-hard Linux, anti-MS fans? Those are an equivalent to the "never EGS" crowd, no? I am neither avoiding anything, denying myself anything, or sacrificing anything. Rather, I am giving myself more options and more flexibility.

If I'm biased towards something, it's the practice of keeping my PC as clutter-free as possible. A new program that essentially does the same thing as another program is clutter. I'm not saying no to EGS. I'm saying no to any program that doesn't offer anything more than the ones I already have.

Maybe my 12-mile example was a little radical. Here's another one: I drive a Ford Fiesta ST. People have asked me why I don't drive a "normal" car like a Corolla to commute and something like an MX-5 (Miata) for weekends? My answer is simplicity: having one car that does it all is easier to maintain (and cheaper too, but that's another story).

Or my phone: I have a Samsung Galaxy A20e. When it dies, I'll probably buy another cheap Samsung. Am I a Samsung fanboy? No. I totally hate the way they refresh their whole range every year just because they can. My reason is the seamless transferring of apps and data between Samsung phones. Do I think there are other good phones on the market? Totally! Do I want one? No (I don't even want another Samsung to be fair).

Or my graphics cards: I currently have an RTX 2070 in my main PC, a GT 710 in my HTPC, and another GT 710 and a GTX 1050 Ti in the drawer. Did I buy them because I'm an nvidia fanboy? No. I found the 2070 cheap on ebay, the 710 is a category that's totally alien to AMD nowadays, and the Palit 1050 Ti KalmX is one of the fastest cards with passive cooling - a real curiosity. I didn't buy them because they're nvidia. I bought them because they are/were the best GPU available for my intended purpose. To prove my point: I also had an RX 5700 XT and I loved it. Do I want one again? No. I'm currently happy with the 2070.

Just because I'm happy with with what I have doesn't make me biased towards any brand.

That's understandable. But there's still a flaw in this logic: owning two cars, buying expensive phones, or buyinng expensive, premium GPUs has tangible consequences. More money, time, effort spent, in some way or other. Sure, they all have benefits, but also very tangible drawbacks. What are the tangible drawbacks from having another launcher? A tiny amount of system resources (if you let it run in the background when not needed) that isn't likely to affect performance noticeably. Which, then, isn't actually tangible at all. It doesn't cost you money, time, power, anything else.

First I had Steam and I didn't need anything else. Then came GOG with their good old games that I used to love as a child, with DOSbox integrated into their client and no copy protection. I had no idea I needed something like that, but when it hit, I thought it was brilliant and I absolutely loved it (and still do). The point is: you don't have to fulfil a need. You need to find something that people secretly want. I know it's terribly hard, but that's the key to success. Being mediocre isn't.


And why exactly would I need just another generic storefront to clutter my PC when I can do the exact same things with GOG or Steam?

Because choice is beneficial in and of itself. More options means more possibilities for sales, bundles, etc. More options means more potential for competition. As for fulfilling a need you didn't know you had: you understand that there is a finite list of these, right? Also, arguing for the value of gimmicks is ... rather problematic. GOG didn't grow big(ish - they can't really be called big) on being "good old games" (sadly!), they grew big on preferential treatment from CDPR, and by branching out into high-profile AAA titles. No outright exclusives, but as close as you can get. But before they did that, they were a tiny (but beloved) niche store with zero effect on the overall games market beyond providing for that specific niche. They started with a gimmick and used that to build a solid and faithful user base, but that growth stalled rather quickly, with their current relative success being down to them expanding beyond this without sacrificing their core. The gimmick gave them a start, but did not make them what they are today. (Though their DRM-free mantra does attract another slightly different user base than the old games stuff does, so I guess they can say they had two gimmicks?)

I acknowledge this as a valid argument, though a weak one. Most people don't care where the money goes. They only care about two things: how much do I pay, and what do I get for it. Besides, there's no guarantee that what you pay on EGS actually reaches the developers. Revenues can be a marketing gimmick too. I personally do not believe that any reseller has any other purpose than making money. The only way they differ is their methods: Steam is omnipresent, GOG offers lots of old-school games and no DRM, and Epic makes titles exclusive to make sure you don't have a choice. To me that's dirty AF.

Your argumentation here is pretty problematic though. "There's no guarantee that what you pay on EGS actually reaches the developers" - sure, but that's equal across the board. Publishers, engine vendors and others will take their cuts no matter what, and independently on where the sale takes place. What does change is if that cut comes from 70% or 88% of the sales price - sure, that will also increase what those third parties are paid (if their cut is based on revenue after the store takes its cut, which is likely), but developers will still get more no matter how that equation plays out. There is no situation in which developers don't gain from this. And whether you care or not, you can't deny that this is factually a good thing. EGS doesn't need to have any purpose beyond making money, they can still (intentionally or not) provide a better payout to developers than their competitors. I don't think EGS is even fractionally more "good" than Steam, but the consequences of their policies have tangible benefits to developers, `which is good.

And you're of course free to feel that exclusives are dirty. But I still question why. Yes, sure, they're taking choice away from you in those cases. But was that choice meaningful to begin with? Does this action actually harm you? (And, of note: if that harm comes from things like "my Steam friends refuse to join EGS, so I can't play with them" - then that's on them, not on EGS.) Not to mention that before this, nearly every game was a de facto Steam exclusive, and couldn't be found on any other storefront - as the developers didn't judge the effort needed to put them there as worth it due to the small customer bases. This is the near-insurmountable hurdle that makes things like exclusives necessary to bring real competition to an entrenched incumbent like Steam. If the vast majority of customers will always check Steam first, there is no way for anyone to overcome that hurdle without taking Steam out of the equation. And no, there are no "innovative features" that would overcome this, as buying the games is the core element here. Ancillary features are ancillary, and the chance of a single one of these convincing a significant amount of people to jump ship is essentially zero. Even at full feature parity and with some revolutionary feature that Steam doesn't have, Steam's massive install base and mindshare would still mean the vast majority of people would buy from them. The core issue here is that you're not accepting the realities of the power relations in play here, and are instead focusing on selective moral reasoning. Sure, exclusivity deals are a bit morally iffy. But are they more morally iffy than Steam by their sheer momentum (size, install base and mind share, ++) maintaining a de facto monopoly? I would say no, not really. Steam has no moral right to a monopoly. But accepting your argument means accepting that they do.

EGS is clearly playing a long game, and it's difficult to judge the outcome this early. But what we do know, which is indisputable, is that they are paying developers generously for (timed or not) exclusives, they are funding development, they are indirectly providing job and income security for workers in a highly volatile industry, and they are (again, indirectly) safeguarding the development of future games from these developers. It is of course entirely possible that some of these games would have made more money if they were on Steam from day one. That's a possibility. But all of them? Not a chance. So the net outcome is that more developers are getting paid more, have more job security, more creative freedom (less pressure to follow the latest trends to try to survive), and can think ahead a bit. This might not last whatsoever, of course. It might end tomorrow for all we know. But at least it has happened. And it is a good thing. Again, that doesn't make EGS "good" - they're a corporation, so by default their only interest is gettting money from people. But at least the actual real-world consequences of this set of actions is to the benefit of game developers and players alike.

 

[AusWolf]

That is a pretty vague suggestion. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

Also, the bolded part further cements that even if Epic's launcher reached parity with Steam's functionality, it would still be deemed unworthy. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", I guess.

Nobody needed GOG before they started their business. Nobody needed a smartphone before smartphones were a thing. Nobody needed a car when everybody still travelled on horseback. It works the same way with everything new. Someone has to create it first, and then people will start needing it. If I had such a revolutionary idea, I would not suggest it here, but do it myself.

GOG is great but it's hardly a Steam competitor. Yes, it has its niche and audience, but it cannot challenge Steam's entrenched position, and it doesn't seem to be trying either. It seems CDPR are content with how GOG has been positioned on the market. If that is the case, awesome! My point is that the innovation GOG provided did not result in it being a true competitor to Steam.
I suspect Epic's goals go beyond having a small niche, which is fine and even welcomed.

I don't mean Epic should settle with being a small niche. They could attract millions of gamers with the right service. What I mean is, they can't compete with Steam, or GOG or anything else by being mediocre. With their current attitude, they'll always be the small store that f***s with gamers by making games exclusive.

Any suggestions or ideas? No?

And no, they cannot carve a slice of the market without taking from someone else's. A person who purchases a game from one store would most likely not purchase it a second time from another. If a user purchases a game from Epic and not Steam, that is essentially Epic taking from Steam's slice.
To me a "new slice" would imply that Epic need to find new customers, those who are not already Steam's or anyone else's customers, which basically means people who have just discovered that gaming and game stores exist. While there are undoubtedly such people, it is incredibly naïve to believe that they would be sufficient to allow Epic to become a true competitor to Steam.

I don't know, I'm not a market analyst. If I really had to come up with something, I would probably have a look what kind of games are selling the best, and what age groups are buying the most. Maybe focus on multiplayer games, and improve services there. Maybe include integration with Twitch (if they don't already have it) or something that targets streamers. But like I said, if I had the recipe for success, I'd do it myself instead of posting it here.

All I'm saying is, in its current form, I don't find EGS attractive in any way, and I don't blame people who feel the same way.

 

[Valantar]

Nobody needed GOG before they started their business. Nobody needed a smartphone before smartphones were a thing. Nobody needed a car when everybody still travelled on horseback. It works the same way with everything new. Someone has to create it first, and then people will start needing it. If I had such a revolutionary idea, I would not suggest it here, but do it myself.


I don't mean Epic should settle with being a small niche. They could attract millions of gamers with the right service. What I mean is, they can't compete with Steam, or GOG or anything else by being mediocre. With their current attitude, they'll always be the small store that f***s with gamers by making games exclusive.


I don't know, I'm not a market analyst. If I really had to come up with something, I would probably have a look what kind of games are selling the best, and what age groups are buying the most. Maybe focus on multiplayer games, and improve services there. Maybe include integration with Twitch (if they don't already have it) or something that targets streamers. But like I said, if I had the recipe for success, I'd do it myself instead of posting it here.

All I'm saying is, in its current form, I don't find EGS attractive in any way, and I don't blame people who feel the same way.

The thing is, what is Steam's "major innovation"? Being an online games storefront. That's it. They were early (not first IIRC) and did it well, but grew big ... how? ... oh, right, they were the only place to play CS and Half Life 2. Steam does not rely on any major innovation for their success, but the simple act of being there with compelling content. At this point, they have the momentum to keep that going nearly no matter what - they'd need to sabotage their own services to fail. Your requirement for competitors to exceed this is unreasonable. At best, it's a double standard.

 

[Selaya]

I still remember when Valve first released Steam during the 1.6/Source days and people were like WTF IS THIS SHIT WHO CARES ITS FUCKING USELESS WHY DO WE HAVE TO USE IT

 

[Crackong]

That's ... a pretty misunderstood take. Their losses don't come from the 12% cut being insufficient for maintaining the store and its necessary infrastructure, their losses come from exclusivity deals, guaranteed minimum payments to developers, free game giveaways, and other strategies to attract developers and customers both. Your argument is precisely the one Apple is trying to make, and one that is extremely selective in its logic. The only possible fair comparison would be with a normalized level of giveaways/developer buyouts/exclusivity deals etc, seeing how EGS has been doing that at a rate much higher than anyone else.

Oh please
These "exclusivity deals, guaranteed minimum payments to developers, free game giveaways, and other strategies to attract developers and customers both."

are not gifts from EPIC.
They had to make these arrangements otherwise NO ONE would use their underdeveloped platform.
These arrangements are straightly tied to "How many ppl will use EGS" = income
No arrangements = No one uses EGS = no income

No matter how you tried to make them sounded pretty.
All the things you have mentioned are expenses of EGS and their income cannot cover their expenses.
It is that simple.

The data just shown you how little 12% isn't gonna cut it to support its daily operations and the cost of necessary arrangements to attract developers and customers.

 

[AusWolf]

That's understandable. But there's still a flaw in this logic: owning two cars, buying expensive phones, or buyinng expensive, premium GPUs has tangible consequences. More money, time, effort spent, in some way or other. Sure, they all have benefits, but also very tangible drawbacks. What are the tangible drawbacks from having another launcher? A tiny amount of system resources (if you let it run in the background when not needed) that isn't likely to affect performance noticeably. Which, then, isn't actually tangible at all. It doesn't cost you money, time, power, anything else.

I currently have 365 games on Steam, 58 on GOG and 32 on Origin. I like keeping an order of them, and knowing what's where. Simplicity is key to any order, keeping stuff in order takes effort. Having another store account and another game launcher that offers nothing more than the ones I currently have is against this principle. I don't want to scroll through 68465 launchers to try to find the one game I want to play.

You're right in saying that the cost in computer resources is tangible, but if Steam costs you let's say 1%, GOG another 1%, EGS another 1%, XYZ Store another 1%, DEFGH Store another 1%... you know what I mean? Where do you draw the line and say no thanks to Generic Store 3957396?

Because choice is beneficial in and of itself. More options means more possibilities for sales, bundles, etc. More options means more potential for competition. As for fulfilling a need you didn't know you had: you understand that there is a finite list of these, right?

Choice is beneficial. My choice is to keep my ever-expanding list of games as organised and in one place as I can. If a game I want gets banned from everything other than EGS, or any new store I'm not registered for, it essentially denies me this choice.

And no, there isn't a finite list of implicit (not clearly expressed or visualised) needs. 500 years ago you would have listed totally different needs for your daily life than you do today. If people have only ever acted upon fulfilling their explicit (clearly stated) needs without using their imagination, we would still be shooting arrows at mammoths.

Your argumentation here is pretty problematic though. "There's no guarantee that what you pay on EGS actually reaches the developers" - sure, but that's equal across the board. Publishers, engine vendors and others will take their cuts no matter what, and independently on where the sale takes place. What does change is if that cut comes from 70% or 88% of the sales price - sure, that will also increase what those third parties are paid (if their cut is based on revenue after the store takes its cut, which is likely), but developers will still get more no matter how that equation plays out. There is no situation in which developers don't gain from this. And whether you care or not, you can't deny that this is factually a good thing. EGS doesn't need to have any purpose beyond making money, they can still (intentionally or not) provide a better payout to developers than their competitors. I don't think EGS is even fractionally more "good" than Steam, but the consequences of their policies have tangible benefits to developers, `which is good.

And you're of course free to feel that exclusives are dirty. But I still question why. Yes, sure, they're taking choice away from you in those cases. But was that choice meaningful to begin with? Does this action actually harm you? (And, of note: if that harm comes from things like "my Steam friends refuse to join EGS, so I can't play with them" - then that's on them, not on EGS.) Not to mention that before this, nearly every game was a de facto Steam exclusive, and couldn't be found on any other storefront - as the developers didn't judge the effort needed to put them there as worth it due to the small customer bases. This is the near-insurmountable hurdle that makes things like exclusives necessary to bring real competition to an entrenched incumbent like Steam. If the vast majority of customers will always check Steam first, there is no way for anyone to overcome that hurdle without taking Steam out of the equation. And no, there are no "innovative features" that would overcome this, as buying the games is the core element here. Ancillary features are ancillary, and the chance of a single one of these convincing a significant amount of people to jump ship is essentially zero. Even at full feature parity and with some revolutionary feature that Steam doesn't have, Steam's massive install base and mindshare would still mean the vast majority of people would buy from them. The core issue here is that you're not accepting the realities of the power relations in play here, and are instead focusing on selective moral reasoning. Sure, exclusivity deals are a bit morally iffy. But are they more morally iffy than Steam by their sheer momentum (size, install base and mind share, ++) maintaining a de facto monopoly? I would say no, not really. Steam has no moral right to a monopoly. But accepting your argument means accepting that they do.

EGS is clearly playing a long game, and it's difficult to judge the outcome this early. But what we do know, which is indisputable, is that they are paying developers generously for (timed or not) exclusives, they are funding development, they are indirectly providing job and income security for workers in a highly volatile industry, and they are (again, indirectly) safeguarding the development of future games from these developers. It is of course entirely possible that some of these games would have made more money if they were on Steam from day one. That's a possibility. But all of them? Not a chance. So the net outcome is that more developers are getting paid more, have more job security, more creative freedom (less pressure to follow the latest trends to try to survive), and can think ahead a bit. This might not last whatsoever, of course. It might end tomorrow for all we know. But at least it has happened. And it is a good thing. Again, that doesn't make EGS "good" - they're a corporation, so by default their only interest is gettting money from people. But at least the actual real-world consequences of this set of actions is to the benefit of game developers and players alike.

That sounds all nice and rainbowy, but like I said, the average person is paying for products and services, not ideas. Also, there's zero guarantee that the system works the way Epic preaches, or that Epic's market share gain really does lead to more creative freedom. There's also the developer who may or may not increase salaries by a significant enough amount to keep their most creative employees. Some people like to say "if the cake gets bigger, the crumbs get bigger", but I see the exact opposite in the real world: as companies get richer, they get more exploitative and uncaring towards their employees, only increasing the wealth of the top leaders, not the company as a whole. With this perspective in mind, Epic is undergoing the underdog effect: people aren't buying from them because they are better, but because hating on the richer (and more seasoned) competition is fashionable. As for me, I have no reason to "fuel" any company with my choices. If one offers a product or service that I'm happy with, I'll buy it. That's it.

Not to mention that the most paying titles nowadays are esports games which are mostly developed using near zero creativity, so their revenues contribute very little to artistic freedom in general.

The thing is, what is Steam's "major innovation"? Being an online games storefront. That's it. They were early (not first IIRC) and did it well, but grew big ... how? ... oh, right, they were the only place to play CS and Half Life 2. Steam does not rely on any major innovation for their success, but the simple act of being there with compelling content. At this point, they have the momentum to keep that going nearly no matter what - they'd need to sabotage their own services to fail. Your requirement for competitors to exceed this is unreasonable. At best, it's a double standard.

That's just how things are. If you're the first, all you need to do is be there. I remember how crap the first smartphones were, but they evolved. Try to release an equally crap smartphone now. Nobody will buy it.

 

[THU31]

Funny how some people prefer Steam monopoly.

What monopoly? Every major publisher has their own store. And you have hundreds of retailers worldwide who sell physical and digital copies for various platforms. And you have DRM-free GOG.
There are deals happening all over the internet every single day. I have not noticed any difference since Epic launched their store.

I am OK with Epic game store. I am not entirely sure with the hate for it.

I just think they would have become popular, while also profitable (or semi at least) if they just offered free obscure games (or really old) every month at least and discount coupons (which they already do).

The hate is the result of paying publishers for timed exclusivity, which is a dickhead move. If they want exclusives, they should develop their own games. Microsoft and Sony have already learned this lesson, for the most part.
Their client app is inferior to Steam in every single way, just like all the other clients. But I have no problem with using Uplay or Origin to play their games. If Epic ever releases their own games that I want to play, I will install their client. Until then I see no reason to.

 

[Ravenas]

If Epic offers an exclusive game that Steam doesn't or the price is better (due to high discount and/or additional coupon), and the user does not need the extra features that Steam has, then that is a reason to use the Epic store and launcher.
Stop projecting your preferences and opinions on other people.

I haven't projected anything. You are just a very defensive or insecure person that can't deal with an opinion that isn't yours. The truth and opinion are two different things though, admittedly so in your previous posts.

But that's the thing: how relevant is this "underdevelopedness" to me as a gamer? I can buy, download and run games, I get cloud synced saves, and that's pretty much all I need. Sure, there are other things that would be nice to have, but none are essential. So if EGS provides good value, free games, better prices (at times, with sales or coupons, though also obviously worse at times), why not use them as well as the others?

IMO, none of EGS's "beta-ness" matters much. If it does to you, I would love to hear how and why. If not, then I'll have to assume you're blowing things out of proportion, as I have nothing else on which to base my beliefs.

Also ... I'm not defending EGS so much as I'm arguing against people arguing against it. The people you mention, die-hard Linux, anti-MS fans? Those are an equivalent to the "never EGS" crowd, no? I am neither avoiding anything, denying myself anything, or sacrificing anything. Rather, I am giving myself more options and more flexibility.

I don't disagree with your preference, it's just the truth of the matter for me in regard to the platform EGS. For me I have a large library on Steam that I have been developing since 2004, and everyone by now knows the features, community, and hardware Steam offers. So, my stance is why switch to a platform which is admittedly underdeveloped, a much smaller library, and doesn't have peripheral hardware support being put out to the community.

The comparison for Linux or MS is straight forward and only to be used in terms of people who use Linux even when it puts a crutch on them, or to say they are so anti-MS that they will fault their own productivity or experience just to be anti-MS. Their may not be a crutch on you, but in general underdeveloped and lacking features can result in this experience.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Valantar, you come across as very anti Steam, why? What difference does it make to you where anyone buys their games, or whether EGS lives or dies.

 

[sepheronx]

What monopoly? Every major publisher has their own store. And you have hundreds of retailers worldwide who sell physical and digital copies for various platforms. And you have DRM-free GOG.
There are deals happening all over the internet every single day. I have not noticed any difference since Epic launched their store.


The hate is the result of paying publishers for timed exclusivity, which is a dickhead move. If they want exclusives, they should develop their own games. Microsoft and Sony have already learned this lesson, for the most part.
Their client app is inferior to Steam in every single way, just like all the other clients. But I have no problem with using Uplay or Origin to play their games. If Epic ever releases their own games that I want to play, I will install their client. Until then I see no reason to.

But that is also up to the companies who wish to take the funding in order to make it times exclusive. Why not refuse those games entirely as a form of protest. That is a two way street and not entirely epic.

Epics interface is fine to me. I'm not a fan of steams. So that's preference to the individual.

 

[64K]

But that is also up to the companies who wish to take the funding in order to make it times exclusive. Why not refuse those games entirely as a form of protest. That is a two way street and not entirely epic.

Epics interface is fine to me. I'm not a fan of steams. So that's preference to the individual.

Some do refuse but I don't think most do. Gamers are an impatient lot. They don't want to wait for 6 months or a year for a game they want to play right now. Hell, they don't even want to wait for a game to get patched and polished after release before buying it. Some don't even want to wait for a game to get released so they pre-order.

 

[THU31]

But that is also up to the companies who wish to take the funding in order to make it times exclusive. Why not refuse those games entirely as a form of protest. That is a two way street and not entirely epic.

Epics interface is fine to me. I'm not a fan of steams. So that's preference to the individual.

That is why I got Metro Exodus from Humble Choice, and I got WRC 8 with a deep discount on Steam.

Make a good and polished game, allow me to buy it wherever I want and I can pay full price at launch. But if they do bullshit like timed exclusivity (or a crappy port), I will buy it at a low price later. I still get to play it, but they barely get any money from it. Who loses more in that situation?

Remember the Metro dev, who said something like "if you do not buy our game on EGS, you will not get a sequel". One of the most pathetic statements I have heard.

 

[Valantar]

I don't disagree with your preference, it's just the truth of the matter for me in regard to the platform EGS. For me I have a large library on Steam that I have been developing since 2004, and everyone by now knows the features, community, and hardware Steam offers. So, my stance is why switch to a platform which is admittedly underdeveloped, a much smaller library, and doesn't have peripheral hardware support being put out to the community.

The comparison for Linux or MS is straight forward and only to be used in terms of people who use Linux even when it puts a crutch on them, or to say they are so anti-MS that they will fault their own productivity or experience just to be anti-MS. Their may not be a crutch on you, but in general underdeveloped and lacking features can result in this experience.

That sounds reasonable, except for one crucial issue: you're arguing from the premise of using EGS = not using Steam. This is not a binary choice. Using both is entirely possible - and, IMO, the only reasonable approach. So, discarding your ... odd premise, then you can still use every feature you mentioned except ... hardware peripheral support? Which ... do you mean their built-in support for controllers? I guess that matters if you use Playstation gamepads. I use an Xbox controller, which works natively with Windows, so I can't say that affects me. If you're talking about other peripheral hardware, I have to admit to having no idea what that would be. VR gear? But for the rest - I mean, sure, accessing the Steam forums can't be done directly through EGS - but that's what web browsers are for. AFAIK, there are no rules saying you can't discuss a game on the Steam forums if you own and play it on EGS.

That's also where your Linux diehard comparsion falls flat: I'm not denying myself anything. I'm choosing to avail myself of all options. The ones refusing to use EGS are the only ones denying themselves anything.

Valantar, you come across as very anti Steam, why? What difference does it make to you where anyone buys their games, or whether EGS lives or dies.

I'm not - I use Steam and have nothing in particular against it. I can't say I particularly like it either - as an application it's quite a mess, but it does have some nice features, and covers the basics well. For my main use - as a game library and store? It's ... fine. The search engine is weird AF and the library takes a lot of work to organize sensibly. GOG Galaxy is far better there IMO. Of course their selection of titles is unmatched, and they have very good sales.

What I am is anti monopolies (whether actual or de facto), and I definitely don't like people blindly defending monopolies and presenting them and/or their controlling entities as virtuous - as is the case here. Steam, Valve and Gaben (increasing in mostly that order) are often treated as something so great, so good, so borderline holy that criticizing them is impossible, even heretical, and anyone doing so is terrible. We see that in every single thread covering EGS or something related to it. And those are the relatively moderate ones - you also have the ones who see not actively arguing for Steam being great as some sort of terrible transgression. No matter if EGS is a cynical corporation only out for our money - they obviously are, but so is Valve! - more cynical corporations fighting over customers is a benefit to those customers. To then see those customers vehemently defending one corporation's right to be their only choice? That makes me deeply sad, and worried for how these people relate to the powers affecting them in their day-to-day lives.

As gamers, we do not owe Steam, Valve or Gaben anything whatsoever. Do they deserve credit for the stuff Steam delivers? Barely. Most of the ideas implemented there are blindingly obvious (online games storefront, forums, cloud save backup, etc.). Some of them are good, and innovative - remote play (together), for example - but those are also niche features with relatively low use. But the crux of the matter: we have paid them for doing this. We have paid them a friggin' fortune. Gaben is a literal billionaire, and Valve's coffers are so fat they can afford to spend a decade without finishing a single notable game development project, instead cancelling everything. I guess they deserve some credit for bankrolling a push for VR, but if so, then Facebook does too (and yeah, vehement Steam fans do tend to hate Facebook to a similar degree in my experience). Valve have had far, far, far more than their due. All the while, most game developers struggle to make ends meet, studios go under with shocking regularity, the job security of people in the business is terrible, which in turn harms their phsyical and mental health and affects their families and friends, causing most people in development to change careers after shockingly short times, causing a constant loss of talent ... and the list goes on. So, when someone comes along and offers to pay developers better, even financing studios wholesale for a period of time, while offering me free games, an alternative storefront (=more sales and coupons), and still deliver the core of this competently? I see absolutely no reason to not take that offer. None whatsoever. If that makes me support a cynical corporation ... well, I've already been doing so by buying Steam games for the past decade and a half.

 

[Ravenas]

That sounds reasonable, except for one crucial issue: you're arguing from the premise of using EGS = not using Steam. This is not a binary choice. Using both is entirely possible - and, IMO, the only reasonable approach. So, discarding your ... odd premise, then you can still use every feature you mentioned except ... hardware peripheral support? Which ... do you mean their built-in support for controllers? I guess that matters if you use Playstation gamepads. I use an Xbox controller, which works natively with Windows, so I can't say that affects me. If you're talking about other peripheral hardware, I have to admit to having no idea what that would be. VR gear? But for the rest - I mean, sure, accessing the Steam forums can't be done directly through EGS - but that's what web browsers are for. AFAIK, there are no rules saying you can't discuss a game on the Steam forums if you own and play it on EGS.

That's also where your Linux diehard comparsion falls flat: I'm not denying myself anything. I'm choosing to avail myself of all options. The ones refusing to use EGS are the only ones denying themselves anything.

The Linux comparison is absolutely true; whether you need Steam's vast library, steam link, proton, index, steam deck, controller compatibility, cross platform compatibility, vast reviews, early access, etc. etc. etc., the fact remains they are there and functional. You may not need all the MS features either, but they are there and are functional.

I'm not arguing that if I use one store, I won't use the other or can't use the other. I'm arguing EGS doesn't offer anything extra or equal to Steam beyond the ability to access Fortnite, and therefore I have no reason to use. I use Battle.net storefront for all Blizzard games, however, if they brought their games to Steam I would probably drop it. I don't find Fortnite to be a particularly good game, as battle royals don't particularly interest me, and they are basically a game mode in every AAA now.

The sign that you have bought in to the PR is obvious... The lower commission and the free games are the only way to attract developers/publishers to an underdeveloped new platform with a smaller userbase. You state that everything Gabe does is a holy grail in the eyes of Valve fans, well that's exactly how you reference Epic... as if they are world's equivalent of Robinhood. Tim can PR on Apple, MS, Sony, Valve, and brick and mortar all he wants, but at the end of the day that's where he is making his money.

At the end of day, pick the platform that works for you. I'm not here to change anyone's mind.

 

[Vayra86]

That is why I got Metro Exodus from Humble Choice, and I got WRC 8 with a deep discount on Steam.

Make a good and polished game, allow me to buy it wherever I want and I can pay full price at launch. But if they do bullshit like timed exclusivity (or a crappy port), I will buy it at a low price later. I still get to play it, but they barely get any money from it. Who loses more in that situation?

Remember the Metro dev, who said something like "if you do not buy our game on EGS, you will not get a sequel". One of the most pathetic statements I have heard.

He's probably correct on it though. Judge the games... not the stores. Its an uncomfortable truth perhaps but true nonetheless.

 

[sepheronx]

That is why I got Metro Exodus from Humble Choice, and I got WRC 8 with a deep discount on Steam.

Make a good and polished game, allow me to buy it wherever I want and I can pay full price at launch. But if they do bullshit like timed exclusivity (or a crappy port), I will buy it at a low price later. I still get to play it, but they barely get any money from it. Who loses more in that situation?

Remember the Metro dev, who said something like "if you do not buy our game on EGS, you will not get a sequel". One of the most pathetic statements I have heard.

this is why I want to go back to the disk era. I want physical media and I want to be able to buy it from walmart, eb games, etc etc etc. And no, not a disk with a steam code or whatever.

But that may just be me.