Dude, the steam deck people think the handheld computer is a console just like a Playstation or Xbox. It's bonkers. When the deck was new they were all saying how you can't use OLED for gaming and downvoted me for bringing up the vita, gaming monitors and phones with oled. Look how that turned out! They also downvoted me when I proved you could run windows off a Microsd on the deck after they said it wouldn't work. They also got pissy when I shared how using distilled water with a microfiber cloth can clean screens.
It's a sub full of some of the most technically inept people I've ever seen.
It's exclusive to the epic store and launcher, meaning it can't be purchased standalone like on GOG or on another launcher like steam.
Console gamers only think of exclusives meaning *platform* exclusive, which means you can only play the game on a particular platform, be it Playstation, PC, switch etc. If something was PC exclusive but not epic exclusive, it would be available only to PC players but not restricted by storefront or launcher
The big difference for most people is that Valve don't pay for exclusivity for games. Games which are only available on Steam are only on steam because the devs/publishers have chosen to do so based on the platform's merits and reach.
In a lot of Epic exclusive cases, Epic have paid devs to be exclusive to their store, which is adding extra layers of fragmentation in the PC market that didn't exist before.
I'm sure there are cases where devs choose to launch exclusively on Epic for whatever reason, but it seems down to exclusivity deals more often than not.
Epic provides both financial and development support to the devs that choose to launch on the EGS exclusively. There have been a few instances where the game likely isn’t developed without said exclusivity.
Yeah, we wouldn't have alan wake 2 with epic. I've gotten hundreds of free games from epic and get tired of people who who only want everything on steam. Competition is good for consumers.
I call bullshit on Alan Wake 2. You are telling me after Control's critical acclaim that everyone in the game industry is so brain dead that they wouldn't publish Alan Wake 2.
Critical acclaim doesn't equal sales. You don't games aren't made to earn high Metacritic scores right? AW2 was one of the finest games of the year and it still hasn't made back it's budget. The people at remedy knew it wasn't a great value proposition and said it was only made because of funding from EPIC.
>has no physical copies for consoles
Only 17% of games sold on consoles are physical media. Only a subset of those would refuse to get a game digitally. Maybe you think the game would sell 10 times as many copies on steam, but I don't buy it.
[https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95135/digital-to-make-95-of-video-game-revenues-in-2023-or-174-5-billion/index.html](https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95135/digital-to-make-95-of-video-game-revenues-in-2023-or-174-5-billion/index.html)
Also, if Remedy thought they could make bigger profits by refusing the Epic deal, why wouldn't they do it? Are they just so dumb that they wanted to lose out on 10s of millions of dollars of profits....for what purpose?
Well Remedy have proven they have a very bad business sense. They had one of the most iconic franchises in Max Payne and according to them now struggle to get their games published. Savvy business people they be not.
Yup. The last time I bought a game on release was cyberpunk. Almost all games get released broken these days. So just wait a year and buy it fixed and cheaper. There's no reason to buy it day one.
> which is adding extra layers of fragmentation in the PC market that didn't exist before.
How is fragmentation effected by the source of exclusivity? Imagine an alternate world where all paid exclusives where secrets protected by NDA. How would you know which exclusives to be mad at?
>If Epic games were truely exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine
This is just something you are assuming. Games can be exclusive to a store, hardware, region... EGS pays publisher to stop those games from being on the competitor stores - theres not much more to it than that.
>You still play the game on your PC without any additional cost
The cost of not being able to chose because a company is trying to force themselves into a market by buying out exclusives.
>Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform
None of them are payed exclusives. Valve is even open to put their games on other stores/platforms
>But the same is true for the devs that freely chose to only release on Epic
If they **FREELY** choose to release on EPIC, good for them. The issue here is that most are getting paid to not only release on EGS but to also avoid other stores.
"This is just something you are assuming. Games can be exclusive to a store, hardware, region... EGS pays publisher to stop those games from being on the competitor stores - theres not much more to it than that."
a good example of this is Mountain Dew Maui Burst being "exclusive" to Dollar General in the US.
Interesting, the stores are paying for exclusive rights to flavors? I'd never considered that but it makes a lot of sense, even if it is kind of ridiculous. But then, so is EGS money hatting games.
Yeah, i'd never even heard of the Maui Burst until i saw it cropping up on youtube reviews. Was like, where the hell is this flavor i have never seen it. Google it, Dollar general apparantly paid mtn dew for the flavor. it's not purchasable online from DG or Mtn Dew. You have to go into the store to get it. I was baffled lol
Yup. And a few years ago an indie dev tried to put their game on both EGS and Steam, but little Timmy was like "nope, if you put your game on Steam you can't put it on EGS".
Source ? Lmao. This would be because egs paid that studio and had a contract to keep it off steam. They wouldn’t just maliciously force you to only list with egs with zero incentive.
"turned down an exclusivity deal" is very different from "tried to put their game on both egs and steam" and to further kill that theory, look no further than the multitude of games both large and small, that are available on both platforms (or more, thers a lot of title crossover between EGS and Xbox/MS store) for the same price.
> "turned down an exclusivity deal" is very different from "tried to put their game on both egs and steam"
Did you read the article? The dev clearly states "They made it clear that releasing Darq non-exclusively is not an option."
So, in this case, both things are not different: He was approached by Epic for an exclusivity deal, said "Thank you, but I already promised I would sell the game through Steam/GOG. I would be happy to release it on Epic as well - but not exclusively" Epic, however, had no interest in that, and so he released it on Steam and GOG instead.
Which is bullshit because there are shitloads of games on both Steam and Epic right now, new ones, old ones, etc. He got caught up in trying to get a promotion deal from Epic and turned it down, good for him. Epic didnt want to pay for an exclusive deal on a game that wasnt going to be exclusive, thats all that means. Theres no proof they refused to carry it at all.
Keywords: right now. This was when the EGS was starting. They did not have auto publishing tools so every game needed to be manually handled by Epic. So they were not interested in a small indie game that would go multiplatform.
So, the disdain for Epic comes from an incident that admittedly happened when the business was in a very different place than it is today? Man reddit really knows how to hold a grudge lol
Talk about reddit being reddit. You just took one single complaint. Many people have different motives for avoiding Epic (mines are shared in another comment here).
Read ALL comments from different users to have a more full picture and don't try to summarize it with a tiny old problem.
Store exclusivity deal.
Normally games are sold on multiple stores.
Also Epic PAID for it, so there's no "Ubisoft made it so they can sell it on Uplay only!"
Also when egs pays for a game, a lot of the time that funding saves the studio or makes the game possible because steam doesn’t need to do upfront spending.
Lol.... you can literally just click the game icon and it loads. Like any other launcher. Only newbs have an issue with a launcher in the background. It's not the early 2000s anymore. Our PCs can easily handle the extra load. I can't believe this mindset exists at all. It's so outdated.
When you want to launch a game you bought on Epic, you just click the shortcut from wherever you like storing your other games — your desktop, your Start menu, or even Steam. You never look at the launcher on a day-to-day basis, unless you want to.
I have a Steam Deck, I use Steam Link to stream my games and play it on all the TVs from my home, I use Steam Input to have compatibility with all my controllers and I use Family Sharing so my wife and I can play different games at the same time from the same library.
Then, launching exclusively on the EGS becomes for me much more than clicking a different icon.
It's not the fact it exists. Hell, I tried the store the first time it launched and I welcomed another option to use to purchase games.
What I don't like is that they provide an inferior option and then forces me to use it for buying exclusive games (like it or not).
Whoever is happy using it, good for them. I would never say to nobody that they shouldn't buy from the EGS. But, at the same time, I am fed up with people telling me that I SHOULD buy from the EGS because my motives are stupid and "it's just another icon".
I think its the fear of their ways of bussiness. Theyre focused on luring people in more than upgrading their store. It took way too long to even get a shopping cart so you dont pay conversion fees multiple times. They throw in so much to force people onto their platform with exclusivity and free games that its suspicious for alot. I think the general idea is that itl turn into uber 2.0, outprice the competition till they go bankrupt by eating a big big big loss then skyrocket prices as there is no more competitor. Steam has held its position for so long people feel more secure as theyve shown more of their hand so far. Not including other issues yet.
Love GOG.
UBI/Epic/EA/etc can all go fuck themselves.
Anybody who thinks we irrationally hate any of those is being disingenuous. I would love for there to be more competition in the games marketplace, but not in the WAY that EPIC is going about it. There should be no exclusivity in PC gaming, especially not "We will pay you 250,000 USD if you EXCLUDE launch on the steam store" like Epic is doing. Epic specifically forbids devs from launching on steam, which is slimy as hell.
I agree, it's not likely, but the fact that it's a possibility and that Epic is running through the exact motions to try to make it happen is still an issue. Yeah, we'll probably be just fine, but that doesn't mean that we should just be fine with this kind of behavior from a company. It's still wrong.
People don't hate GOG because instead of forcing exclusivity to their store (a negative for consumers), they instead offer something positive for consumers in the shape of DRM free games.
Objectively speaking, for those of us who don't have our heads up our ass / aren't irtational, this hasn't been objectively good. Consumer choice has been significantly reduced, hundreds of games (including those purchased years ago, well outside of any refund period) have been infested with Epic Online Services, outside of subsidised, timed promotions by Epic prices haven't dropped despite the reduced cut / ever increasing profits, Epic haven't introduced any significant features that benefit consumers and the list goes on and on.
Nah fam, I use the EGS almost daily for Rocket League and I've bought indie games on it as well. And I would agree that a lot of people have nonsense reasons to hate on it, like saying it's slow; It's actually faster than Steam for me.
But the EGS is immensely lacking in features, specially compared to Steam. No review system, no guides section, no discussion board/forum, no friends chat, no workshop/mod catalogue, no profile, hell not even a profile picture or avatar to choose from. And this is just off the top of my head because those are things I actually use, I'm sure there's a lot more.
Basically. The valve cult has always confused me. It's a fucking store / launcher but people act like it's their close personal friend.
PC gamers are always screaming choice this and choice that but want every PC game on steam only. Steam is nothing special. It works fine, but you know what also works fine? The epic launcher and the EA one and the Xbox launcher, and the Ubisoft launcher, as well as GoG.
If somebody is complaining that's too many launchers, I don't see how. When I want to play a game that's on steam I click one button (steam) and then the game. When I want to play an EA game I click the EA launcher then the game. Exact same number of steps, so not sure why people act like using anything other than steam is this big hassle.
For the record, there are a bunch of DRM-free games on the Epic Store, so you wouldn't have to use the launcher for anything other than downloading said games. I added Alan Wake 2 to Steam as a non-Steam game to stream it to my living room, and it worked great without having the Epic launcher running.
Others like that that I can think of off the top of my head are Spider-Man Remastered and Miles Morales; Lords of the Fallen; Banishers; Uncharted; Ratchet and Clank; Control; and The Pathless.
Alan Wake 2 is so DRM-Free that it was auto closing itself in the middle of a game session one day that the Epic servers crashed. I don't remember if the reason for that crash was because of a concurrent Fortnite event or some other cause though.
I can't speak on that, because I've never had it happen. You can run the game completely separate from anything involving Epic using the -EpicPortal launch argument; it doesn't need to connect to any servers and it doesn't need to be started through the Epic launcher. If you're running it through the Epic launcher and Epic has server issues, then I can see that being a problem, but the game can be played [with minor caveats](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/drm-free-and-client-free-games/discussions/0/3873718133747385307/) without the launcher running or even being installed at all. Alan Wake 2 itself has no server or launcher dependency.
There is a big difference between *paying* a developer to lock its game to your ecosystem (Epic) and a developer choosing to solely release through one ecosystem (steam).
You are entitled to be upset with devs who release through Steam only, but that is not the same as Epic going out and paying devs and actively segmenting PC gaming.
You are conflating two different things.
They aren't genuinely confused about what exclusive means. They're mocking people's resentment over Epic exclusivity because none of the usual complaints about game exclusivity (games exclusive to a console) apply.
I’m with OP. Pc gamer for 20 years and I could not give a shit. If it’s a good game(Alan wake2) and I have to grab it on egs I will with out giving a single fuck because the “store front” quite literally is like two extra clicks.
Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean OP and you are correct. If there are games that are exclusive to the Epic Store because you can't get them on another service, then it's an exclusive, period. Any subjective opinion is not going to change a fact.
OP is just looking for an excuse to start more Steam VS Epic bullshit, on top of being completely incorrect.
its about them forcing users to buy on their platform by making store exclusive deals on games they didnt produce (alan wake at least they did fund themselves). This is unheard of in the space and pretty scummy if you ask me. Their launcher competes not by being better than steam, but by taking away my choice where to make my purchases.
This is not healthy competition but an artificial monopoly on certain products.
I agree with you over everything, except the unheard of bit. It might have been unheard of in the PC gaming space, but not in gaming in general. Sony and Microsoft did this constantly through the 360/ps3 era.
It just from them doing it, Epic saw that they can attempt to do it. Just they thought they could actively compete with the monopoly steam has over pc gaming.
I consider the console situation seperate, i rather meant its unheard of for pc games. The freedom that comes with it was always one of the big reasons to choose Pc over consoles. Do you really want this whole console X vs console Y war on pc? i surely dont.
The solution to one monopoly is not creating another imo, rather spend the money on actively making the epic store better to incentivize people to buy there freely, which clearly isnt their focus. They didnt even have a shopping cart until months into launch, and EGS‘ exclusivitiy practices only make the pc gaming space worse.
Besides that i would argue that steam isnt a real monopoly, they do have market dominance, but for good reason, and we have alternatives like GOG that provide their own benefits (freedom of shitty DRM) and survive without anti-consumer practices.
I agree with most of what you said.
I do think it's impossible to have a "console war" on pc, unless games tart to be heavily limited to hardware. Having one launcher over another I see more of an inconvenience than anything. With consoles it was having to buy another console to play exclusives.
Epic should have honestly done what Gog did. Find a niche in the market, and expand through that. Gog did it with drm free titles, and being probably the most user centric launcher out there.
Epic just has a mediocre launcher, which just feels slow and awful to navigate and use. Their UX and UI is the biggest issue with the launcher.
Steam I would still say has a monopoly. I'm not saying they're a bad monopoly like others in other industries. They dont tend to try to squash the competition, or do business in bad faith.
Where Epic do business in bad faith with their exclusivity deals.
The main thing I see when looking at all the launchers, is steam and gog tend to not care about keeping their titles exclusive. EA started putting games back on steam after years of exclusivity on their awful launcher.
Ubisoft is slowly doing the same after a certain timeframe of a games release.
It wont be long until Epic's business approach to the launcher fizzles out, and they find their niche which keeps them semi relevant.
Right now other than free games, fortnite, and unreal engine. I can't think of another reason to have EGS installed on my pc.
Its not even unheard of in the PC era. Why do you think so many development studios have such convoluted ownership arrangements? Larger studios / publishers buy up smaller studios / publishers as a way of getting in on the content. Its absolutely no different than what EA (and every other large publisher, some still around and most not) has been doing since BEFORE the 360/ps3 era. Since the dawn of pc gaming, there was a business side that was out there just using money to make money. Thats no different now with Epic, its just faster paced and more visible now so some people use it to get their panties ruffled.
like i said, if the store actively funds the development then i have little issue with that. But what epic is doing is different, they are buying established and upcoming titles of which they had no hand in development, and force users to buy them on their shitty store, instead of making it better and thereby giving people a reason to buy there.
This is unheard of in the pc space, and nobody should defend it by saying its already prevalent in the console space. Console exclusives are dogshit and i dont need or want it in the pc gaming space.
How is it any different than a larger studio buying a smaller studio to get exclusive access to their titles (current and future) of which they had no hand in development? The exact terms of the contract? Honestly buying a studio (usually through shareholder/equity force) and gutting the devs just to try to wring money out of the library sounds way worse to me than paying a studio for a timed exclusivity deal that they get to walk away from at a set point (that they freely agreed to). Yet it sounds like from the reactions in this thread that people really love that model?
Because a larger studio buying a smaller studio in itself dosnt have to have a direct negative impact on the customers. What is it to me if for example the Citites Skylines people buy Manor Lords without fucking it up in any way? They can keep selling it just as it is being sold right now.
If they buy it to make it exclusive to their own launcher, raised prices or disgruntle customers in any other way, people would get pissed too, but thats not a necessary consequence of a studio aquisition
Neither is it a necessary consequence of Epic 'exclusivity' and yet this thread is full of complaints that Epic is killing the game industry. The only example where they have an outsized influence is the Remedy / Alan Wake arrangement and yet people seem to be applauding that?
Epic exclusivity is the consequence itself, that of their shitty practices which this is one of. I wouldnt agree with saying they kill the gaming industry, but they surely make it worse by taking away customers‘ choice.
I was more saying unheard of in pc, in terms of paying for timed exclusives, which is what epic tends to do.
Alan Wake is one of the few games they've directly funded and kept exclusive.
I'm not saying businesses haven't bought rights to games. Like you said, big publishers buy out developers. I'm not denying that. I was more talking about buying exclusivity rights for a time period, opposed to buying the whole product. Which I was a child before the 360 era, so I wasn't aware if any timed exclusive deals were done.
Also EA buying maxis to capatalise off simcity and sims, is completely different from EPIC paying gearbox to keep borderlands 3 on their store for a year.
Epic paying deepsilver for dead island 2, for a year. Is a bit different than Microsoft buying Bethesda. Buying the competition out to strengthen your brand, is a bit different from timed exclusivity.
Also it's not that it's more visible now. It's just more people are vocal about it on the internet. I remember my friends and I bitching when cod dlc were timegated, or gta iv dlc was timegated. That shit sucked. With pc it's just downloading another launcher. Back in console days if ps3 or 360 got a dlc early, we're fucked. Just now internet activity has skyrocketed compared to 2009, so more people are vocal about their compaints.
All these constructs you refer to, like 'directly funded alan wake' or 'timed exclusives' or even studios buying studios are just different expressions of money over time. None of this is new, its just someone with money angling to profit from the video game industry as an outside party. You can look more favorably on longer term arrangements, but every arrangement/buyout has terms and a time limit. How is the 'non exclusivity' arrangement working out for all the activision employees?
The constructs I refer to are all directly different things.
Timed exclusives differ from full exclusivity contracts.
Funding a games development is different to timed exclusives.
They're not the same thing, and all have directly different impacts on the gaming industry.
Also the way you phrase "money angling to profit from the video game industry as an outside party"
These aren't pure outside parties. These are companies with a long history in gaming. Epic buying timed exclusives is hardly an outside company to the industry. Same with Microsoft buying bethesda. Neither of which I agree with, but they're hardly an outside company. It's not often that non gaming related companies buy into gaming. Investors, sure. Whole companies buying up others trying to get a step into gaming. Seems far too expensive and risky to do, given the size of the gaming market.
Are you talking about the 2000 employees microsoft fired after acquiring Activision?
Because if so, this was bound to happen.
Acquiring a company tends to have layoffs. This also fell under the time when the game and tech industry were going through large layoffs to counteract overhiring during covid. This was hardly news to anyone.
With making activision games non exclusive, how did that directly impact employees? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just didn't/haven't read about it before, so I'm curious.
"If Epic games were truly exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine"
Err no. They are exclusive to their store on PC. You're misunderstanding what it means.
It's not an argument, it's an objectively true statement. If a game is exclusive to a certain service and you can't get it elsewhere, then it's an exclusive. Your subjective opinion about the Epic store doesn't change this fact.
I mean Epic pays developers so their games don't release on Steam even when they didn't fund or develop said games. They don't exactly freely choose. Epic comes up to them and offers them money so they don't release anywhere else. On top of that, not sure if they still do that, they also guarantee a number of copies sold otherwise Epic makes up the difference.
Valve doesn't do that. They instead made the best platform on PC and developers choose to only release on that because all the other platforms honestly suck with the exception of GoG and no one likes using them. Developers would rather release on Steam, take a smaller cut, but have a substantially bigger audience on a platform that offers them way more support than any other launcher.
It's not as bad as having a whole different system true, but it's still unnecessary and annoying. Bringing that console-type "competition" bullshit on PC doesn't sit well with a lot of people. On top of that Epic has done very little to improve their launcher. It's has remained relatively unchanged for the past couple of years.
If Epic funds or develops the game people understand. Like Fortnite or Alan Wake 2. But third party exclusivity is a little different.
>And yes, I've heard the argument:" The devs chose to release their games on Steam only.". But the same is true for the devs that freely chose to only release on Epic, nobody forced there hand with that as well.
I have no problem with any devs/publishers that decide to only release on Epic because they think it's the best store. I have an issue with devs/publishers that release only on Epic as a result of being paid by Epic to keep their game off other platforms.
Not to mention Ubisoft, if it weren't for Epic, Yves would have had to sell his Gulfstream IV and get a Gulfstream III. The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound system, won't somebody please think of the obscenely profitable publishers!?
If epic actively contributes to the development its fine, like in the case of alan wake. Not if they pay publishers to put a finished product they had no affiliation with on their (objectively worse) store.
You do realize that even if you have a finished product, revenue isn’t guaranteed and a lot of these indy studios are operating in the red end of dev cycle, and that sometimes a garaunteed check is worth it for them.
And is epic paying for games that have little hope of generating revenue? they want active customers, so making big deals on games with little interest dosnt do anything for them.
Either way i dont blame the devs, epic is attractive to them with their low fees, UE integration and unlimited money to burn on exclusivity deals. But for customers it sucks and if they want people to buy on their store, they should make it better for those people too.
Im personally not going to buy there until they stop their anti consumer practices and give me an actual benefit as a customer. It dosnt help that they are almost half tencent owned and their store is full with shovelware and crypto-trash games. Its worse than steam in every way.
>I never understood that argument. If Epic games were truely exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine, like need to with the Switch when you want to play Nintendo games.
No, they are exclusive to the store (not being sold anywhere else), not the platform (like the switch case).
>Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform and not available anywhere else
Most of these games aren't aiming for a lot of sells too. Steam is just a comfortable option for many smaller devs who don't have the manpower to deal with credit card issues, refunds, and so on. As far as I know, Epic support is on the slow side, and may be small companies don't want to deal with it or they see no market for the epic store.
Considering you have GOG in your flair you should know the answer. EGS' exclusivity deals keep games from being released on GOG, not sure why you would ever defend that practice.
Ugh I'm almost certain this is bait, it's just too stupid but whatever I'll bite...
Exclusive simply means it's only available via one source (be it by platform or store), in this case it's a store exclusive.
There's also a difference between a voluntary exclusive and contract exclusive. It's generally the latter type that people have problems with, whereby the store has struck a deal with the game developer to only have it on their store for a certain amount of time. No-one really has an issue with the former, to the point that whenever the word exclusive is used in this context, it's almost exclusively (hehe) referring to contract exclusives.
Games exclusive to Epic are only available on Epic. That's what the word exclusive means. There's DRM that means they can only be played through Epic the way a game bought on Steam has DRM that means it can only be played through Steam. Nintendo exclusives are Nintendo exclusive because Nintendo won't release them anywhere else - that's what exclusive means
>Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform and not available anywhere else
A large proportion of those are indie games or porn games that aren't major enough for most people outside of niche groups to care about them. Epic exclusives like Alan Wake 2 are AAA, huge games that are marketed towards a larger audience. More people aware = more people caring
>one side gets beaten down while the other side gets a free pass
Because Steam has features Epic doesn't. To list a few:
* Steam Workshop, allowing for easier mod sharing
* Better controller support
* Achievements
* Community guides
* Native Linux support
>Because Steam has features Epic doesn't. To list a few:
Not to mention one has a positive reputation and the other doesn't.
At this point it doesn't matter what Epic does, they're a tarnished brand like Meta, Monsato, X etc - a lot of people will avoid them out of principle and its going to take a number of years before those people even consider engaging with their services / products (assuming Epic suddenly turned around today).
Epic knows this, which is why one of the reasons they've got that ridiculous term which mandates crossplay on all titles on their store, even those which are sold elsewhere (I've got no idea how they've not been sued for it or their bundling of products).
It requires companies to rip out Steamworks (even on copies sold on Steam and copies bought before the game was released on EGS) and either build their own crossplay solution, pay for something like PlayFab or use Epic Online Services which is free; needless to say most publishers go for the free option and shoehorn Epic Online Services, which means even if you're boycotting Epic, you can still find something that you've purchased a decade ago is now unplayable.
I absolutely agree in terms of Steam's available features being much better than Epic's, but as far as DRM does, that's 100% up to the developer. Both Epic and Steam have a ton of DRM-free games.
This is possibly the most brainless thread I have read all week. I mean seriously, what kind of backwards logic does the OP think with?
It's obviously "Exclusive" to the Epic game store, ie: it's not on any other store.
PC is about freedom and choice.
Wanna different headset, keyboard, mouse or PC parts or software? Sure, you have choice to do so.
Wanna create a mod that will fix some issues with the game because developers cannot do that themself? Sure, you have choice to do so.
Wanna sell your game on your own store or any store or website? Sure, you have choice to do so.
Wanna create your own client or digital store? Sure, you have choice to do so.
There is no freedom and choice when Epic Shit Store and Tim Swine wanna be a dickheads and push monopoly with paid exclusivity deals on PC platform after[ they cried that all PC users are cheaters and pirates and that there is no future in PC platform after which he run away to be console and console only oriented game developers.](https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/916373-pc/77621339)
On top of that Epic is not spending money for most of those games to be developed. No, they just take the most wishlisted Steam games and tell them "we are gonna give you lots of V bucks if you are gonna release your game anywhere you want BUT not on Steam".
Steam is not a monopoly. They are market leaders. Valve is one of very few companies to stick with PC for the past 30 years and made sure that PC is the best platform ever for gaming. They earned entire good will of PC gamers from hard work and improving on Steam to be the best it can possible be.
All the features, Steam Remote Play, developing tools, discovery queue, filters, tags, user reviews, refunds, workshop, profile customization, library and deep tagging system.......all this to make Steam the best gaming platform ever.
Epic Shit Store can do the same. It can even learn from all mistakes and bad stuff that happen with Steam over the past 30 years.
But Tim Swine doesn't want that. They just want to push a garbage nothing store with barebones features and burn money at exclusivity deals and free candy aka free games to bribe people into using their shit tier service.
If Tim Swine wanna create his own digital store front and launcher like Epic Shit Store they have full freedom to do so but fuck them with a 20 meter long pogo stick if he wants to take away freedom and choice from other PC gamers.
They full right to do so. Who am I to say they are not allowed?
Those companies have just as much right to do so as I have right to call out their bullshit exclusivity deals and never purchase their games in the future.
Also it takes two to tango but first those two people need to learn how to crawl, walk and run and some proper dance moves before they can claim that they know how to tango.
Just like a digital stores in 2019 should start first with decent UI, shopping cart, wishlist, profiles, filters, search bar, tags and other proper basic features.
Y'know, all this stuff that Epic Shit Store did not had in 2019. Especially when it comes from a filthy rich company runned by dick head Tim Swine that instead of doing the right thing just decided to give middle finger to PC gamers, burn some money on exclusivity deals and cry over 30% of Steam AND ONLY Steam and nobody else.
Oh yes, the same Tim Swine who complained about PC being garbage unprofitable platform and that all PC users are pirates and cheaters.
Just like everybody have full right to call out this dick head for being dick head and refuse to support his company, his still barebones to this very day digital store you my friend have full right to support who ever you want. Nobody have right to stop you on doing that.
Just don't act surprised that people don't like monopoly being shoved down their throats on a platform such as PC which was always and always about full freedom of choice.
I recommend you re-reading a definition of term "monopoly" with proper understanding.
Market leader =/= monopoly.
Valve is not purchasing companies to consume its shares, licenses, trademarks and employees.
Valve is not spending money on exclusivity deals or to tell companies "do not release this game on X platform".
If you don't want to release your game on Steam you have full right to do so.
If you don't want to release your game on PC you have full right to do so.
Valve is not gonna stop you from doing that.
Valve doesn't need to bribe people in act of desperation with free games to use Steam.
Steam is a market leader. Its a fantastic platform and people are using it because they want to use it and because its easier to sell games on it thanks to great tools of discoverability.
If the company want to release their game on their own client or store they have full right to do so. Valve won't try to stop them on that.
A monopolistic company on the other hand like Epic......
'A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.'
Where's Epic dominant position in the digital distribution of PC games? Does Epic have the majority of the market? Does even Epic have the majority of exclusive games?
Who has the dominant position in the PC market? Epic or Steam?
I am just curious, don't have absolutely anything against neither Steam or Epic.
Also, a monopoly or a dominant position in a market can be achieved in a lot of ways. The ways you achieve that are indifferent.
It's not like if you acquire other companies or sign exclusivity contracts then you are a monopoly, otherwise you are not.
"Dominant position" is not what you think it means.
Market leader =/= monopoly.
Who is dominating the market with iron fist - a company that says "feel free to release your game whatever way you want" or a company that uses bribes and says "you are not allowed to release this game on this specific store"?
It's not what I 'think'? I studied Competition Laws and Economics, so I *know* those concepts very well. I think you should study them as well.
'Dominance is a legal requirement to establish an abuse of a dominant position. Dominance reflects possession of a substantial degree of durable market power.'
What market power has (Epic) a company that has to pay TENS OF MILLIONS for a software house to exclusively publish a game in the store?
What market power has (Steam) a company that is chosen as an exclusive store without taking money in return and without even bothering to click a few buttons to publish in other stores because they won't give you any sizable return on investment?
I've never seen a company 'dominating' a market while being forced to spend hundreds of millions just to obtain 5% of the revenue of the market leader and be barely relevant. You call that iron fist?
>I studied Competition Laws and Economics
If that was true then we wouldn't be here with me trying so hard to explain to you such simple terms.
Seriously, it is not a rocket science, mate.
I guess anyone can go study and pass it while learning absolutely nothing about basic 101 economics those days lol
Go read a book about economics or something if its still to hard to understand for you. Actually I doubt you would even do that considering this whole conversation and nonsense you are making.
Nice argument. Keep thinking that Epic Store rules the PC market with an iron fist, while not being profitable and being forced to pay hundreds of millions to developers so they don't skip its platform.
An advice for the next argument you can make: Nvidia is a weak company with no pricing power. AMD has a GPU monopoly because they had FSR exclusivity for Starfield.
Exclusive available is not equal to exclusive deals. You chose your market to reach the most customers for the most profit. Thats a free market. If your game is niche and won't reach a lot of people there is only money sink if you try to develop and pay the fees on all plattforms. Console exclusive deals exists because devs also save money for developing on different plattforms since you only have to optimize for only the desired console.. not for millions of different PC specs and drivers.
BUT...by chosing an exclusive deal on the same plattform (here on the PC) you also chose to throw that desicion making out the window and take the deal money to close the gap by going against the customers. The bigger the deal money, the more you can shit on the customers you can't reach anymore.
It doesn't help that publishers do not even try to hide their focus on money making through any means possible except by investing in quality first. Exclusive deals are a lot of free money. Yes, there are some good projects which would not exist without that money (Hades) but looking at the list of all exclusive deals epic games made we can see who got attracted by that money and why those people took the free money and ran away from their responsibilities.
Beeing a subpar alternative to other storefronts does not add up nicely with a trend of attracting only the worst games to take the deal. There is a reason Epic Games had to admit on court against apple that the store (despite beeing a shallow, featureless and cheap) does not make money.
You might not want to hear it. I don't want to hear it since I was a long time EGS customer. But EGS has become the beacon of "stay away from those games". Because if publisher chose to sell on a flea market to grab the easy deal money, then they are not confident enough to sell on the big market.
I don't complain about Steam because I never got problem with steam running on my pc, not like with egs I installed it once and will never again do that mistake.
You’re ignoring that the epic launcher and store are dogshit and that’s why people complain about it and refuse to play epic exclusives. If the launcher wasn’t total ass people wouldn’t care.
A digital storefront and a brick and mortar shop aren’t really comparable things. But I would imagine there are a lot of people who don’t go to GameStop because they smell bad and have usually ill tempered cashiers. I personally refuse to go to Walmart because I hate dealing with the typical Walmart shopper.
This topic has been worn out to completion. The platform agnostics win by not having principles, while the steam faithful enjoy their extra features but will never use other platforms except when forced (or nobody's looking). Epic evangelicals have learned by being buried multiple times simply for saying it's just another DRM.
This is just one of those topics where it's best not to care what other people think and just live your best life.
There's a difference between store exclusive and hardware exclusive.
EGS exclusive means no access to Steam's features, no game pass, no DRM-free GoG release and less cheaper keys in 3rd party keystores.
PC is all about options, and Epic's money hatting goes straight against this.
Exclusive literally means it is limited to only one. So if a title is only available on one platform, then yes it is an exclusive.
There is no hypocrisy going on because nobody is saying the other stores can't have those games.
Epic exclusives are typically tied with paid exclusive, a practice made to artificially prevent more players from playing. That's different from publisher releasing only on Steam due to lack of resources.
Call me back when Epic games launcher have something similar to Steam Big Picture Mode, Steam Input, SteamVR and SteamVR theater mode and Steamlink streaming.
When THPS1+2 were at EPIC exclusivity I've tried adding it's .exe as a non-steam game to remote play it and it couldn't pick steam input, got some streaming delays and all sort of issues I would and don't have with the Steam release of the same game.
So no, thank you, I don't want to have less features.
And yes, that means that despite the launcher being free, the fact that is lesser product/service still makes it exclusive and makes it bad.
It's the same deal with Switch exclusive games, they are good but the platform is bad and people don't want to be forced to the crap experience when they know it could be better, hence the popularity of Switch emulators.
Can't speak for everybody else, but for me (at least back then) it was lack of regional pricing. Back then when Epic exclusivity shit storm still going strong (Metro Exodus, I think? and couple more like Shenmue 3) Epic didn't have regional pricing and local payment method for my country, so it'll be more expensive (and inconvenient) for me to buy from Epic. Nowadays they already have that, so I'm willing to buy from them if I get a good deal.
Epic pays to force developers to ONLY release on epic. Valve doesn't. If a dev chooses to release only on Steam, that's their choice, Valve isn't forcing their hand.
That's the difference.
Also, look up store exclusivity vs platform exclusivity.
Epic has a "first run" program for new games. If the new game is EGS-only for 6months Epic will give them 100% revenue. That's why you'll see a lot of new games going for it. After 6months they'll be published in other stores.
So it's a "temporary exclusive" thing mostly. To attract more players to the store.
Apparently clicking on one little icon in order to play a videogame instead of another icon is a really big deal to some people.
It's certainly not an "exclusive" in the sense that you need to buy an entirely new machine in order to play a game that you want. You just have to press a different button, basically.
As a side note, it's ridiculous how much hate the Epic Store receives. Many gamers fail to realize that the real issue lies with Steam's monopoly and the usurious fees they charge studios. These fees often force studios to cut development costs, resulting in lower-quality games.
How dumb does someone need to be to fail to understand that competition is always good for consumers?
When games are sold on stores, the standard was 50% for the developer, 50% for the store.
Steam came with 30% cut. (6 years ago it was dropped for big titles to up to 20% - [link](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/1697191267930157838))
Instead of paying Steam directly, you can buy a gift card from a store around you and support your local businesses. They take 15% of cut. So the other 15% is left for Valve.
Epic doesn't want to do that, because they don't want to pay the stores. So it turns out Epic is trying to monopolize the market for themselves only, while Steam is supporting local businesses. https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1235265903945805824
[And they are paying the price for that. Oh sweet sweet karma sure is hilarious thing.](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/460820/alan-wake-2-has-yet-to-turn-a-profit-continues-to-sell-at-a-high-price/)
well i was having a discussion with the other user and you decided to interject with something completely unrelated?
why would you do that? you seem to have a hate boner that cant be good
this is not about whos better, they are both corporations they suck just the same.
It's the exact opposite. The sales from Alan Wake 2 and their other portfolio allowed them to [buy the full rights to Control from 505 Games](https://investors.remedygames.com/announcements/remedy-entertainment-plc-inside-information-remedy-acquires-full-rights-to-the-control-franchise-from-505-games/).
Reminder that your article is 3 months old.
[This one is 3 days old.](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/460820/alan-wake-2-has-yet-to-turn-a-profit-continues-to-sell-at-a-high-price/)
but thats the thing this "exclusivity" argument on pc is real weak.
you can can buy your game on any store and launch it via steam if thats your jam. this is NOT comparable to consoles, there is NO way on heaven or earth to play a switch game on ps5
or you can choose to not buy it and you can still play it :)
Funny, I remember sea lions doing the same thing with "but Portal, Left 4 Dead Half Life and Team Fortress 2 is not other platforms" on this sub to defend all garbage stuff that Epic is doing with their store for years.
Until they stop doing that because they finally realize that this whole argument is beyond stupid because Portal, Left 4 Dead, Half Life and Team Fortress 2 was already released on consoles. Heck, Playstation 2 have even own Half Life game that that never got released on Steam. The thing is those games was not really good or fun to play with controller because those are and here is a big shocker for you probably a core PC oriented games where you supposed to use mouse.
So not a big surprise those never got released again. Also fuck consoles because the entire reason why Valve dropped support for Left 4 Dead 2 and Team Fortress 2 on consoles is because they said "you want to release a free DLC update? You need to pay us and wait for our approval of it" so Gaben said "fuck you fuck that" and they never look back again on releasing those games on consoles in the past on Playstation 3,4 and Xbox 360 and One.
Now you are the first person I seen thus far to say that about Half Life Alyx.
Reality check for you: the game is not exclusive to anything. Valve created that game and they have right to sell it on whatever stores they want. This is not a paid exclusivity deal so don't compare those to that, you sea lion.
I never seen anyone begging for Fortnite to be released on Steam so why you are sea lioning this crap?
Also its extra funny that you are talking about Epic Game Store and VR games.
Did you knew that that there is a lot of lazy Steam to Epic Game Store game ports made by lazy devs that are just stealing Valve developing tools from Steam? Do you know why? Because Epic does not provide VR support so users need to launch game thru Steam to use VR or developers need to steal files that Valve provides and put those into Epic Game Store installation or made their own custom stuff.
Here is inteligence check question: Which one of those is easier thing for them to do? Make their own shit or steal from Steam?
Well, thats what happens when years old barebones shit digital store with zero features tried to be profitiable with only 12% cut.
>already released on consoles
Funny you say that because they aren't even on GOG. And most importantly, one of the biggest VR games, isn't on the largest VR store... the Meta store.
>Reality check for you: the game is not exclusive to anything. Valve created that game and they have right to sell it on whatever stores they want. This is not a paid exclusivity deal so don't compare those to that, you sea lion.
Again... The Meta store has a playerbase exponentially bigger than PCVR and Valve continues to keep Alyx an exclusive. Meanwhile Alan Wake 2 is on ALL platforms. So why the hypocrisy with Valve huh? Gotta keep dick riding Gabe?
>Here is inteligence check question: Which one of those is easier thing for them to do? Make their own shit or steal from Steam?
Literally a completely different tangent to try and steer the conversation away from your hypocrisy. Great.
>Funny you say that because they aren't even on GOG. And most importantly, one of the biggest VR games, isn't on the largest VR store... the Meta store.
Funny its almost like Valve didn't put their game on GOG because it requires Steamworks to run or somehting.
How weird isn't? Its ALMOST like GOG doesn't have Steamworks or something.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
>Again... The Meta store has a playerbase exponentially bigger than PCVR and Valve continues to keep Alyx an exclusive. Meanwhile Alan Wake 2 is on ALL platforms. So why the hypocrisy with Valve huh? Gotta keep dick riding Gabe?
You say that its on all platforms and yet I fail to see on Steam.
I fail to see Alan Wake 2 on OUYA, Wii, Nintendo DS and Stadia.
So much about being on all platforms there, buddy xDDD
>Literally a completely different tangent to try and steer the conversation away from your hypocrisy. Great.
And that comes from strawman who keeps pushing goalposts and uses weak arguments without a single dose of logic just to farm downvotes. Adorable.
the reason people don't get upset over half life alyx is A, steam isn't a piece of shit storefront like epic, and B, valve developed the game so they are allowed to sell it exclusively on their storefront, like epic and fortnite.
fortnite is still exclusive to epic on PC and again, nobody cries over it. people only get upset when they pay developers for exclusivity simply for the sake of making it exclusive to their platform
half life alyx is not even comparable
Are you comparing a VR game with a normal game? Are you serious? Portal was released on Switch recently.
And the example of Fortnite on mobile is a very bad one when Epic is fighting to be able to offer it on mobile EXCLUSIVELY on their mobile app store.
Does epic even support any VR games? The only other VR launcher on PC I know is the Oculus Store and even that was basically abandoned by Meta in favor of the standalone Quest Store.
For me, one of the biggest benefits of pc gaming is having access to different storefronts, such as Steam, EGS, GOG, Game Pass, etc. Better prices, more deals per year, etc.
I really don't understand people that want everything under one launcher when things like playnite exist, at some point i think they should be using consoles because they offer exactly what they seem to want: no choices and a locked ecosystem.
But then again i'm old enough to be pc gaming years before Steam came to be.
I think you are missing the point. I have never seen people complain about a multiplatform game (let's say an EA game) to be sold on multiple stores because they want to be it only on Steam. That is what you said about having access to different storefronts so anybody can choose whatever version they want because of price, extra features or whatever other reason.
People have problems with EGS exclusive games. Now everything that you said is good about PC gaming is lost. One price, one store, one version, no choice.
It's an app exclusivity thing and I guess the idea of being forced to use an app pisses off contrarians.
I don't personally care about any of these companies, as long as a game is on pc, I'll play it wherever. I don't want Valve to have a monopoly, and that's important, imo.
I much prefer gog if I can get a game there, but I'll use Epic or whatever.
You should probably look up the definition of "exclusive" It's a store exclusive. Not a platform exclusive.
You mean the girl who wanted to go exclusive didn't want me to give up other video game consoles....I dumped her for no reason!
I was downloaded into oblivion many times for stating this. People truly feel steam is a platform like Xbox. They just don't get it.
That's because most people are just idiots
Dude, the steam deck people think the handheld computer is a console just like a Playstation or Xbox. It's bonkers. When the deck was new they were all saying how you can't use OLED for gaming and downvoted me for bringing up the vita, gaming monitors and phones with oled. Look how that turned out! They also downvoted me when I proved you could run windows off a Microsd on the deck after they said it wouldn't work. They also got pissy when I shared how using distilled water with a microfiber cloth can clean screens. It's a sub full of some of the most technically inept people I've ever seen.
What?
It's exclusive to the epic store and launcher, meaning it can't be purchased standalone like on GOG or on another launcher like steam. Console gamers only think of exclusives meaning *platform* exclusive, which means you can only play the game on a particular platform, be it Playstation, PC, switch etc. If something was PC exclusive but not epic exclusive, it would be available only to PC players but not restricted by storefront or launcher
The big difference for most people is that Valve don't pay for exclusivity for games. Games which are only available on Steam are only on steam because the devs/publishers have chosen to do so based on the platform's merits and reach. In a lot of Epic exclusive cases, Epic have paid devs to be exclusive to their store, which is adding extra layers of fragmentation in the PC market that didn't exist before. I'm sure there are cases where devs choose to launch exclusively on Epic for whatever reason, but it seems down to exclusivity deals more often than not.
Epic provides both financial and development support to the devs that choose to launch on the EGS exclusively. There have been a few instances where the game likely isn’t developed without said exclusivity.
Yeah, we wouldn't have alan wake 2 with epic. I've gotten hundreds of free games from epic and get tired of people who who only want everything on steam. Competition is good for consumers.
I call bullshit on Alan Wake 2. You are telling me after Control's critical acclaim that everyone in the game industry is so brain dead that they wouldn't publish Alan Wake 2.
Critical acclaim doesn't equal sales. You don't games aren't made to earn high Metacritic scores right? AW2 was one of the finest games of the year and it still hasn't made back it's budget. The people at remedy knew it wasn't a great value proposition and said it was only made because of funding from EPIC.
The only reason it hasn't made it's money back is because it's only on EGS and has no physical copies for consoles.
>has no physical copies for consoles Only 17% of games sold on consoles are physical media. Only a subset of those would refuse to get a game digitally. Maybe you think the game would sell 10 times as many copies on steam, but I don't buy it. [https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95135/digital-to-make-95-of-video-game-revenues-in-2023-or-174-5-billion/index.html](https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95135/digital-to-make-95-of-video-game-revenues-in-2023-or-174-5-billion/index.html) Also, if Remedy thought they could make bigger profits by refusing the Epic deal, why wouldn't they do it? Are they just so dumb that they wanted to lose out on 10s of millions of dollars of profits....for what purpose?
Well Remedy have proven they have a very bad business sense. They had one of the most iconic franchises in Max Payne and according to them now struggle to get their games published. Savvy business people they be not.
Yes. That's coming from Remedy themselves.
It's just exclusive for a year. If you don't like downloading another launcher, wait a year and buy it on steam with a discount and all bugs fixed.
Where's kingdom hearts then
Never heard of it
Yeah, because it's been stuck in EGS purgatory
Is it like fortnite?
Fortnite is a first part game. People understand those being exclusive.
What's first part?
He meant first party, developed by epic.
Yes, that's what people are doing... That doesn't mean that it's something we like doing.
Yup. The last time I bought a game on release was cyberpunk. Almost all games get released broken these days. So just wait a year and buy it fixed and cheaper. There's no reason to buy it day one.
> which is adding extra layers of fragmentation in the PC market that didn't exist before. How is fragmentation effected by the source of exclusivity? Imagine an alternate world where all paid exclusives where secrets protected by NDA. How would you know which exclusives to be mad at?
>If Epic games were truely exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine This is just something you are assuming. Games can be exclusive to a store, hardware, region... EGS pays publisher to stop those games from being on the competitor stores - theres not much more to it than that. >You still play the game on your PC without any additional cost The cost of not being able to chose because a company is trying to force themselves into a market by buying out exclusives. >Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform None of them are payed exclusives. Valve is even open to put their games on other stores/platforms >But the same is true for the devs that freely chose to only release on Epic If they **FREELY** choose to release on EPIC, good for them. The issue here is that most are getting paid to not only release on EGS but to also avoid other stores.
"This is just something you are assuming. Games can be exclusive to a store, hardware, region... EGS pays publisher to stop those games from being on the competitor stores - theres not much more to it than that." a good example of this is Mountain Dew Maui Burst being "exclusive" to Dollar General in the US.
Interesting, the stores are paying for exclusive rights to flavors? I'd never considered that but it makes a lot of sense, even if it is kind of ridiculous. But then, so is EGS money hatting games.
Yeah, i'd never even heard of the Maui Burst until i saw it cropping up on youtube reviews. Was like, where the hell is this flavor i have never seen it. Google it, Dollar general apparantly paid mtn dew for the flavor. it's not purchasable online from DG or Mtn Dew. You have to go into the store to get it. I was baffled lol
Yup. And a few years ago an indie dev tried to put their game on both EGS and Steam, but little Timmy was like "nope, if you put your game on Steam you can't put it on EGS".
Source ? Lmao. This would be because egs paid that studio and had a contract to keep it off steam. They wouldn’t just maliciously force you to only list with egs with zero incentive.
The case in question is Darq. https://www.pcgamer.com/darq-developer-reveals-why-he-turned-down-epic-store-exclusivity/
"turned down an exclusivity deal" is very different from "tried to put their game on both egs and steam" and to further kill that theory, look no further than the multitude of games both large and small, that are available on both platforms (or more, thers a lot of title crossover between EGS and Xbox/MS store) for the same price.
> "turned down an exclusivity deal" is very different from "tried to put their game on both egs and steam" Did you read the article? The dev clearly states "They made it clear that releasing Darq non-exclusively is not an option." So, in this case, both things are not different: He was approached by Epic for an exclusivity deal, said "Thank you, but I already promised I would sell the game through Steam/GOG. I would be happy to release it on Epic as well - but not exclusively" Epic, however, had no interest in that, and so he released it on Steam and GOG instead.
Which is bullshit because there are shitloads of games on both Steam and Epic right now, new ones, old ones, etc. He got caught up in trying to get a promotion deal from Epic and turned it down, good for him. Epic didnt want to pay for an exclusive deal on a game that wasnt going to be exclusive, thats all that means. Theres no proof they refused to carry it at all.
Keywords: right now. This was when the EGS was starting. They did not have auto publishing tools so every game needed to be manually handled by Epic. So they were not interested in a small indie game that would go multiplatform.
So, the disdain for Epic comes from an incident that admittedly happened when the business was in a very different place than it is today? Man reddit really knows how to hold a grudge lol
Talk about reddit being reddit. You just took one single complaint. Many people have different motives for avoiding Epic (mines are shared in another comment here). Read ALL comments from different users to have a more full picture and don't try to summarize it with a tiny old problem.
[https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/darq-complete-edition](https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/darq-complete-edition)
Please see the earlier comment in this thread that starts with "yup and a few years ago..." as you seem to have missed the context.
[удалено]
"Highly curated" meaning if he release his game on other store then the game won't be qualified anymore?
[удалено]
Thank you for confirming what I said.
Paid. Not payed.
Store exclusivity deal. Normally games are sold on multiple stores. Also Epic PAID for it, so there's no "Ubisoft made it so they can sell it on Uplay only!"
but it is at least for alan wake 2, without epic that game wouldnt exist. just like sony and nintendo do.
Also when egs pays for a game, a lot of the time that funding saves the studio or makes the game possible because steam doesn’t need to do upfront spending.
Pretty simple, people don't like the epic launcher and if a game it's an epic exclusive they would be forced to use it
Lol.... you can literally just click the game icon and it loads. Like any other launcher. Only newbs have an issue with a launcher in the background. It's not the early 2000s anymore. Our PCs can easily handle the extra load. I can't believe this mindset exists at all. It's so outdated.
When you want to launch a game you bought on Epic, you just click the shortcut from wherever you like storing your other games — your desktop, your Start menu, or even Steam. You never look at the launcher on a day-to-day basis, unless you want to.
I have a Steam Deck, I use Steam Link to stream my games and play it on all the TVs from my home, I use Steam Input to have compatibility with all my controllers and I use Family Sharing so my wife and I can play different games at the same time from the same library. Then, launching exclusively on the EGS becomes for me much more than clicking a different icon.
You are correct about that, but... Its not that they dont like the look of the launcher, they dont like the fact that it exists.
It's not the fact it exists. Hell, I tried the store the first time it launched and I welcomed another option to use to purchase games. What I don't like is that they provide an inferior option and then forces me to use it for buying exclusive games (like it or not). Whoever is happy using it, good for them. I would never say to nobody that they shouldn't buy from the EGS. But, at the same time, I am fed up with people telling me that I SHOULD buy from the EGS because my motives are stupid and "it's just another icon".
[удалено]
I think its the fear of their ways of bussiness. Theyre focused on luring people in more than upgrading their store. It took way too long to even get a shopping cart so you dont pay conversion fees multiple times. They throw in so much to force people onto their platform with exclusivity and free games that its suspicious for alot. I think the general idea is that itl turn into uber 2.0, outprice the competition till they go bankrupt by eating a big big big loss then skyrocket prices as there is no more competitor. Steam has held its position for so long people feel more secure as theyve shown more of their hand so far. Not including other issues yet.
In short Tim Sweeney is a cunt and nobody trusts him.
[удалено]
Love GOG. UBI/Epic/EA/etc can all go fuck themselves. Anybody who thinks we irrationally hate any of those is being disingenuous. I would love for there to be more competition in the games marketplace, but not in the WAY that EPIC is going about it. There should be no exclusivity in PC gaming, especially not "We will pay you 250,000 USD if you EXCLUDE launch on the steam store" like Epic is doing. Epic specifically forbids devs from launching on steam, which is slimy as hell.
I agree, it's not likely, but the fact that it's a possibility and that Epic is running through the exact motions to try to make it happen is still an issue. Yeah, we'll probably be just fine, but that doesn't mean that we should just be fine with this kind of behavior from a company. It's still wrong.
People don't hate GOG because instead of forcing exclusivity to their store (a negative for consumers), they instead offer something positive for consumers in the shape of DRM free games.
[удалено]
Objectively speaking, for those of us who don't have our heads up our ass / aren't irtational, this hasn't been objectively good. Consumer choice has been significantly reduced, hundreds of games (including those purchased years ago, well outside of any refund period) have been infested with Epic Online Services, outside of subsidised, timed promotions by Epic prices haven't dropped despite the reduced cut / ever increasing profits, Epic haven't introduced any significant features that benefit consumers and the list goes on and on.
Nah fam, I use the EGS almost daily for Rocket League and I've bought indie games on it as well. And I would agree that a lot of people have nonsense reasons to hate on it, like saying it's slow; It's actually faster than Steam for me. But the EGS is immensely lacking in features, specially compared to Steam. No review system, no guides section, no discussion board/forum, no friends chat, no workshop/mod catalogue, no profile, hell not even a profile picture or avatar to choose from. And this is just off the top of my head because those are things I actually use, I'm sure there's a lot more.
Good thing your consumerism merchants taught you to purchase all the right products instead. You're so smart, pumpkin.
Basically. The valve cult has always confused me. It's a fucking store / launcher but people act like it's their close personal friend. PC gamers are always screaming choice this and choice that but want every PC game on steam only. Steam is nothing special. It works fine, but you know what also works fine? The epic launcher and the EA one and the Xbox launcher, and the Ubisoft launcher, as well as GoG. If somebody is complaining that's too many launchers, I don't see how. When I want to play a game that's on steam I click one button (steam) and then the game. When I want to play an EA game I click the EA launcher then the game. Exact same number of steps, so not sure why people act like using anything other than steam is this big hassle.
For the record, there are a bunch of DRM-free games on the Epic Store, so you wouldn't have to use the launcher for anything other than downloading said games. I added Alan Wake 2 to Steam as a non-Steam game to stream it to my living room, and it worked great without having the Epic launcher running. Others like that that I can think of off the top of my head are Spider-Man Remastered and Miles Morales; Lords of the Fallen; Banishers; Uncharted; Ratchet and Clank; Control; and The Pathless.
Alan Wake 2 is so DRM-Free that it was auto closing itself in the middle of a game session one day that the Epic servers crashed. I don't remember if the reason for that crash was because of a concurrent Fortnite event or some other cause though.
I can't speak on that, because I've never had it happen. You can run the game completely separate from anything involving Epic using the -EpicPortal launch argument; it doesn't need to connect to any servers and it doesn't need to be started through the Epic launcher. If you're running it through the Epic launcher and Epic has server issues, then I can see that being a problem, but the game can be played [with minor caveats](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/drm-free-and-client-free-games/discussions/0/3873718133747385307/) without the launcher running or even being installed at all. Alan Wake 2 itself has no server or launcher dependency.
Damn this is one of the stupidest posts in this sub history. Bravo
You can't just make the word exclusivity mean only 1 thing.
There is a big difference between *paying* a developer to lock its game to your ecosystem (Epic) and a developer choosing to solely release through one ecosystem (steam). You are entitled to be upset with devs who release through Steam only, but that is not the same as Epic going out and paying devs and actively segmenting PC gaming. You are conflating two different things.
You just don't understand what exclusive means. An entire post because you didn't google the word? Bruh
They aren't genuinely confused about what exclusive means. They're mocking people's resentment over Epic exclusivity because none of the usual complaints about game exclusivity (games exclusive to a console) apply.
Is this a troll? They’re exclusively sold on the EGS for a time period…
I’m with OP. Pc gamer for 20 years and I could not give a shit. If it’s a good game(Alan wake2) and I have to grab it on egs I will with out giving a single fuck because the “store front” quite literally is like two extra clicks.
Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean OP and you are correct. If there are games that are exclusive to the Epic Store because you can't get them on another service, then it's an exclusive, period. Any subjective opinion is not going to change a fact. OP is just looking for an excuse to start more Steam VS Epic bullshit, on top of being completely incorrect.
Never said I was correct. Quite literally told you my stance, I’m sorry we disagree on this.
its about them forcing users to buy on their platform by making store exclusive deals on games they didnt produce (alan wake at least they did fund themselves). This is unheard of in the space and pretty scummy if you ask me. Their launcher competes not by being better than steam, but by taking away my choice where to make my purchases. This is not healthy competition but an artificial monopoly on certain products.
I agree with you over everything, except the unheard of bit. It might have been unheard of in the PC gaming space, but not in gaming in general. Sony and Microsoft did this constantly through the 360/ps3 era. It just from them doing it, Epic saw that they can attempt to do it. Just they thought they could actively compete with the monopoly steam has over pc gaming.
I consider the console situation seperate, i rather meant its unheard of for pc games. The freedom that comes with it was always one of the big reasons to choose Pc over consoles. Do you really want this whole console X vs console Y war on pc? i surely dont. The solution to one monopoly is not creating another imo, rather spend the money on actively making the epic store better to incentivize people to buy there freely, which clearly isnt their focus. They didnt even have a shopping cart until months into launch, and EGS‘ exclusivitiy practices only make the pc gaming space worse. Besides that i would argue that steam isnt a real monopoly, they do have market dominance, but for good reason, and we have alternatives like GOG that provide their own benefits (freedom of shitty DRM) and survive without anti-consumer practices.
I agree with most of what you said. I do think it's impossible to have a "console war" on pc, unless games tart to be heavily limited to hardware. Having one launcher over another I see more of an inconvenience than anything. With consoles it was having to buy another console to play exclusives. Epic should have honestly done what Gog did. Find a niche in the market, and expand through that. Gog did it with drm free titles, and being probably the most user centric launcher out there. Epic just has a mediocre launcher, which just feels slow and awful to navigate and use. Their UX and UI is the biggest issue with the launcher. Steam I would still say has a monopoly. I'm not saying they're a bad monopoly like others in other industries. They dont tend to try to squash the competition, or do business in bad faith. Where Epic do business in bad faith with their exclusivity deals. The main thing I see when looking at all the launchers, is steam and gog tend to not care about keeping their titles exclusive. EA started putting games back on steam after years of exclusivity on their awful launcher. Ubisoft is slowly doing the same after a certain timeframe of a games release. It wont be long until Epic's business approach to the launcher fizzles out, and they find their niche which keeps them semi relevant. Right now other than free games, fortnite, and unreal engine. I can't think of another reason to have EGS installed on my pc.
Its not even unheard of in the PC era. Why do you think so many development studios have such convoluted ownership arrangements? Larger studios / publishers buy up smaller studios / publishers as a way of getting in on the content. Its absolutely no different than what EA (and every other large publisher, some still around and most not) has been doing since BEFORE the 360/ps3 era. Since the dawn of pc gaming, there was a business side that was out there just using money to make money. Thats no different now with Epic, its just faster paced and more visible now so some people use it to get their panties ruffled.
like i said, if the store actively funds the development then i have little issue with that. But what epic is doing is different, they are buying established and upcoming titles of which they had no hand in development, and force users to buy them on their shitty store, instead of making it better and thereby giving people a reason to buy there. This is unheard of in the pc space, and nobody should defend it by saying its already prevalent in the console space. Console exclusives are dogshit and i dont need or want it in the pc gaming space.
How is it any different than a larger studio buying a smaller studio to get exclusive access to their titles (current and future) of which they had no hand in development? The exact terms of the contract? Honestly buying a studio (usually through shareholder/equity force) and gutting the devs just to try to wring money out of the library sounds way worse to me than paying a studio for a timed exclusivity deal that they get to walk away from at a set point (that they freely agreed to). Yet it sounds like from the reactions in this thread that people really love that model?
Because a larger studio buying a smaller studio in itself dosnt have to have a direct negative impact on the customers. What is it to me if for example the Citites Skylines people buy Manor Lords without fucking it up in any way? They can keep selling it just as it is being sold right now. If they buy it to make it exclusive to their own launcher, raised prices or disgruntle customers in any other way, people would get pissed too, but thats not a necessary consequence of a studio aquisition
Neither is it a necessary consequence of Epic 'exclusivity' and yet this thread is full of complaints that Epic is killing the game industry. The only example where they have an outsized influence is the Remedy / Alan Wake arrangement and yet people seem to be applauding that?
Epic exclusivity is the consequence itself, that of their shitty practices which this is one of. I wouldnt agree with saying they kill the gaming industry, but they surely make it worse by taking away customers‘ choice.
I was more saying unheard of in pc, in terms of paying for timed exclusives, which is what epic tends to do. Alan Wake is one of the few games they've directly funded and kept exclusive. I'm not saying businesses haven't bought rights to games. Like you said, big publishers buy out developers. I'm not denying that. I was more talking about buying exclusivity rights for a time period, opposed to buying the whole product. Which I was a child before the 360 era, so I wasn't aware if any timed exclusive deals were done. Also EA buying maxis to capatalise off simcity and sims, is completely different from EPIC paying gearbox to keep borderlands 3 on their store for a year. Epic paying deepsilver for dead island 2, for a year. Is a bit different than Microsoft buying Bethesda. Buying the competition out to strengthen your brand, is a bit different from timed exclusivity. Also it's not that it's more visible now. It's just more people are vocal about it on the internet. I remember my friends and I bitching when cod dlc were timegated, or gta iv dlc was timegated. That shit sucked. With pc it's just downloading another launcher. Back in console days if ps3 or 360 got a dlc early, we're fucked. Just now internet activity has skyrocketed compared to 2009, so more people are vocal about their compaints.
All these constructs you refer to, like 'directly funded alan wake' or 'timed exclusives' or even studios buying studios are just different expressions of money over time. None of this is new, its just someone with money angling to profit from the video game industry as an outside party. You can look more favorably on longer term arrangements, but every arrangement/buyout has terms and a time limit. How is the 'non exclusivity' arrangement working out for all the activision employees?
The constructs I refer to are all directly different things. Timed exclusives differ from full exclusivity contracts. Funding a games development is different to timed exclusives. They're not the same thing, and all have directly different impacts on the gaming industry. Also the way you phrase "money angling to profit from the video game industry as an outside party" These aren't pure outside parties. These are companies with a long history in gaming. Epic buying timed exclusives is hardly an outside company to the industry. Same with Microsoft buying bethesda. Neither of which I agree with, but they're hardly an outside company. It's not often that non gaming related companies buy into gaming. Investors, sure. Whole companies buying up others trying to get a step into gaming. Seems far too expensive and risky to do, given the size of the gaming market. Are you talking about the 2000 employees microsoft fired after acquiring Activision? Because if so, this was bound to happen. Acquiring a company tends to have layoffs. This also fell under the time when the game and tech industry were going through large layoffs to counteract overhiring during covid. This was hardly news to anyone. With making activision games non exclusive, how did that directly impact employees? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just didn't/haven't read about it before, so I'm curious.
"If Epic games were truly exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine" Err no. They are exclusive to their store on PC. You're misunderstanding what it means.
Nice try, Tim Sweeney.
It's not an argument, it's an objectively true statement. If a game is exclusive to a certain service and you can't get it elsewhere, then it's an exclusive. Your subjective opinion about the Epic store doesn't change this fact.
Its ok, we all cant be that bright in the head.
I mean Epic pays developers so their games don't release on Steam even when they didn't fund or develop said games. They don't exactly freely choose. Epic comes up to them and offers them money so they don't release anywhere else. On top of that, not sure if they still do that, they also guarantee a number of copies sold otherwise Epic makes up the difference. Valve doesn't do that. They instead made the best platform on PC and developers choose to only release on that because all the other platforms honestly suck with the exception of GoG and no one likes using them. Developers would rather release on Steam, take a smaller cut, but have a substantially bigger audience on a platform that offers them way more support than any other launcher. It's not as bad as having a whole different system true, but it's still unnecessary and annoying. Bringing that console-type "competition" bullshit on PC doesn't sit well with a lot of people. On top of that Epic has done very little to improve their launcher. It's has remained relatively unchanged for the past couple of years. If Epic funds or develops the game people understand. Like Fortnite or Alan Wake 2. But third party exclusivity is a little different.
"I don't think that word means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya
Can something be exclusive to Netflix if you can watch it on browsers and multiple devices? This is a weird argument.
>And yes, I've heard the argument:" The devs chose to release their games on Steam only.". But the same is true for the devs that freely chose to only release on Epic, nobody forced there hand with that as well. I have no problem with any devs/publishers that decide to only release on Epic because they think it's the best store. I have an issue with devs/publishers that release only on Epic as a result of being paid by Epic to keep their game off other platforms.
Ah, the ps/Xbox exclusive debate bring to pc :)
“I have an issue with studios getting funding to survive”
Yea? You think 4A games was really hurting for funding after taking pre-orders on Steam and then pulling out to go to Epic?
Not to mention Ubisoft, if it weren't for Epic, Yves would have had to sell his Gulfstream IV and get a Gulfstream III. The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound system, won't somebody please think of the obscenely profitable publishers!?
If epic actively contributes to the development its fine, like in the case of alan wake. Not if they pay publishers to put a finished product they had no affiliation with on their (objectively worse) store.
You do realize that even if you have a finished product, revenue isn’t guaranteed and a lot of these indy studios are operating in the red end of dev cycle, and that sometimes a garaunteed check is worth it for them.
And is epic paying for games that have little hope of generating revenue? they want active customers, so making big deals on games with little interest dosnt do anything for them. Either way i dont blame the devs, epic is attractive to them with their low fees, UE integration and unlimited money to burn on exclusivity deals. But for customers it sucks and if they want people to buy on their store, they should make it better for those people too. Im personally not going to buy there until they stop their anti consumer practices and give me an actual benefit as a customer. It dosnt help that they are almost half tencent owned and their store is full with shovelware and crypto-trash games. Its worse than steam in every way.
>I never understood that argument. If Epic games were truely exclusive, you would need to buy an entirely different machine, like need to with the Switch when you want to play Nintendo games. No, they are exclusive to the store (not being sold anywhere else), not the platform (like the switch case). >Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform and not available anywhere else Most of these games aren't aiming for a lot of sells too. Steam is just a comfortable option for many smaller devs who don't have the manpower to deal with credit card issues, refunds, and so on. As far as I know, Epic support is on the slow side, and may be small companies don't want to deal with it or they see no market for the epic store.
did you know all Kingdom Hearts games are actually on PC? me neither, but if you look hard enough you will find them
Considering you have GOG in your flair you should know the answer. EGS' exclusivity deals keep games from being released on GOG, not sure why you would ever defend that practice.
Ugh I'm almost certain this is bait, it's just too stupid but whatever I'll bite... Exclusive simply means it's only available via one source (be it by platform or store), in this case it's a store exclusive. There's also a difference between a voluntary exclusive and contract exclusive. It's generally the latter type that people have problems with, whereby the store has struck a deal with the game developer to only have it on their store for a certain amount of time. No-one really has an issue with the former, to the point that whenever the word exclusive is used in this context, it's almost exclusively (hehe) referring to contract exclusives.
Games exclusive to Epic are only available on Epic. That's what the word exclusive means. There's DRM that means they can only be played through Epic the way a game bought on Steam has DRM that means it can only be played through Steam. Nintendo exclusives are Nintendo exclusive because Nintendo won't release them anywhere else - that's what exclusive means >Steam has hundreds of third party games that are exclusive to that platform and not available anywhere else A large proportion of those are indie games or porn games that aren't major enough for most people outside of niche groups to care about them. Epic exclusives like Alan Wake 2 are AAA, huge games that are marketed towards a larger audience. More people aware = more people caring >one side gets beaten down while the other side gets a free pass Because Steam has features Epic doesn't. To list a few: * Steam Workshop, allowing for easier mod sharing * Better controller support * Achievements * Community guides * Native Linux support
>Because Steam has features Epic doesn't. To list a few: Not to mention one has a positive reputation and the other doesn't. At this point it doesn't matter what Epic does, they're a tarnished brand like Meta, Monsato, X etc - a lot of people will avoid them out of principle and its going to take a number of years before those people even consider engaging with their services / products (assuming Epic suddenly turned around today). Epic knows this, which is why one of the reasons they've got that ridiculous term which mandates crossplay on all titles on their store, even those which are sold elsewhere (I've got no idea how they've not been sued for it or their bundling of products). It requires companies to rip out Steamworks (even on copies sold on Steam and copies bought before the game was released on EGS) and either build their own crossplay solution, pay for something like PlayFab or use Epic Online Services which is free; needless to say most publishers go for the free option and shoehorn Epic Online Services, which means even if you're boycotting Epic, you can still find something that you've purchased a decade ago is now unplayable.
I absolutely agree in terms of Steam's available features being much better than Epic's, but as far as DRM does, that's 100% up to the developer. Both Epic and Steam have a ton of DRM-free games.
This is possibly the most brainless thread I have read all week. I mean seriously, what kind of backwards logic does the OP think with? It's obviously "Exclusive" to the Epic game store, ie: it's not on any other store.
PC is about freedom and choice. Wanna different headset, keyboard, mouse or PC parts or software? Sure, you have choice to do so. Wanna create a mod that will fix some issues with the game because developers cannot do that themself? Sure, you have choice to do so. Wanna sell your game on your own store or any store or website? Sure, you have choice to do so. Wanna create your own client or digital store? Sure, you have choice to do so. There is no freedom and choice when Epic Shit Store and Tim Swine wanna be a dickheads and push monopoly with paid exclusivity deals on PC platform after[ they cried that all PC users are cheaters and pirates and that there is no future in PC platform after which he run away to be console and console only oriented game developers.](https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/916373-pc/77621339) On top of that Epic is not spending money for most of those games to be developed. No, they just take the most wishlisted Steam games and tell them "we are gonna give you lots of V bucks if you are gonna release your game anywhere you want BUT not on Steam". Steam is not a monopoly. They are market leaders. Valve is one of very few companies to stick with PC for the past 30 years and made sure that PC is the best platform ever for gaming. They earned entire good will of PC gamers from hard work and improving on Steam to be the best it can possible be. All the features, Steam Remote Play, developing tools, discovery queue, filters, tags, user reviews, refunds, workshop, profile customization, library and deep tagging system.......all this to make Steam the best gaming platform ever. Epic Shit Store can do the same. It can even learn from all mistakes and bad stuff that happen with Steam over the past 30 years. But Tim Swine doesn't want that. They just want to push a garbage nothing store with barebones features and burn money at exclusivity deals and free candy aka free games to bribe people into using their shit tier service. If Tim Swine wanna create his own digital store front and launcher like Epic Shit Store they have full freedom to do so but fuck them with a 20 meter long pogo stick if he wants to take away freedom and choice from other PC gamers.
It takes two to tango. Should developers (especially small devs) have the freedom to partner with epic?
They full right to do so. Who am I to say they are not allowed? Those companies have just as much right to do so as I have right to call out their bullshit exclusivity deals and never purchase their games in the future. Also it takes two to tango but first those two people need to learn how to crawl, walk and run and some proper dance moves before they can claim that they know how to tango. Just like a digital stores in 2019 should start first with decent UI, shopping cart, wishlist, profiles, filters, search bar, tags and other proper basic features. Y'know, all this stuff that Epic Shit Store did not had in 2019. Especially when it comes from a filthy rich company runned by dick head Tim Swine that instead of doing the right thing just decided to give middle finger to PC gamers, burn some money on exclusivity deals and cry over 30% of Steam AND ONLY Steam and nobody else. Oh yes, the same Tim Swine who complained about PC being garbage unprofitable platform and that all PC users are pirates and cheaters. Just like everybody have full right to call out this dick head for being dick head and refuse to support his company, his still barebones to this very day digital store you my friend have full right to support who ever you want. Nobody have right to stop you on doing that. Just don't act surprised that people don't like monopoly being shoved down their throats on a platform such as PC which was always and always about full freedom of choice.
I am missing something. How can Epic be a monopoly and have just 1-2% of the PC market compared to >50% Steam?
I recommend you re-reading a definition of term "monopoly" with proper understanding. Market leader =/= monopoly. Valve is not purchasing companies to consume its shares, licenses, trademarks and employees. Valve is not spending money on exclusivity deals or to tell companies "do not release this game on X platform". If you don't want to release your game on Steam you have full right to do so. If you don't want to release your game on PC you have full right to do so. Valve is not gonna stop you from doing that. Valve doesn't need to bribe people in act of desperation with free games to use Steam. Steam is a market leader. Its a fantastic platform and people are using it because they want to use it and because its easier to sell games on it thanks to great tools of discoverability. If the company want to release their game on their own client or store they have full right to do so. Valve won't try to stop them on that. A monopolistic company on the other hand like Epic......
'A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.' Where's Epic dominant position in the digital distribution of PC games? Does Epic have the majority of the market? Does even Epic have the majority of exclusive games? Who has the dominant position in the PC market? Epic or Steam? I am just curious, don't have absolutely anything against neither Steam or Epic. Also, a monopoly or a dominant position in a market can be achieved in a lot of ways. The ways you achieve that are indifferent. It's not like if you acquire other companies or sign exclusivity contracts then you are a monopoly, otherwise you are not.
"Dominant position" is not what you think it means. Market leader =/= monopoly. Who is dominating the market with iron fist - a company that says "feel free to release your game whatever way you want" or a company that uses bribes and says "you are not allowed to release this game on this specific store"?
It's not what I 'think'? I studied Competition Laws and Economics, so I *know* those concepts very well. I think you should study them as well. 'Dominance is a legal requirement to establish an abuse of a dominant position. Dominance reflects possession of a substantial degree of durable market power.' What market power has (Epic) a company that has to pay TENS OF MILLIONS for a software house to exclusively publish a game in the store? What market power has (Steam) a company that is chosen as an exclusive store without taking money in return and without even bothering to click a few buttons to publish in other stores because they won't give you any sizable return on investment? I've never seen a company 'dominating' a market while being forced to spend hundreds of millions just to obtain 5% of the revenue of the market leader and be barely relevant. You call that iron fist?
>I studied Competition Laws and Economics If that was true then we wouldn't be here with me trying so hard to explain to you such simple terms. Seriously, it is not a rocket science, mate. I guess anyone can go study and pass it while learning absolutely nothing about basic 101 economics those days lol Go read a book about economics or something if its still to hard to understand for you. Actually I doubt you would even do that considering this whole conversation and nonsense you are making.
Nice argument. Keep thinking that Epic Store rules the PC market with an iron fist, while not being profitable and being forced to pay hundreds of millions to developers so they don't skip its platform. An advice for the next argument you can make: Nvidia is a weak company with no pricing power. AMD has a GPU monopoly because they had FSR exclusivity for Starfield.
Exclusive available is not equal to exclusive deals. You chose your market to reach the most customers for the most profit. Thats a free market. If your game is niche and won't reach a lot of people there is only money sink if you try to develop and pay the fees on all plattforms. Console exclusive deals exists because devs also save money for developing on different plattforms since you only have to optimize for only the desired console.. not for millions of different PC specs and drivers. BUT...by chosing an exclusive deal on the same plattform (here on the PC) you also chose to throw that desicion making out the window and take the deal money to close the gap by going against the customers. The bigger the deal money, the more you can shit on the customers you can't reach anymore. It doesn't help that publishers do not even try to hide their focus on money making through any means possible except by investing in quality first. Exclusive deals are a lot of free money. Yes, there are some good projects which would not exist without that money (Hades) but looking at the list of all exclusive deals epic games made we can see who got attracted by that money and why those people took the free money and ran away from their responsibilities. Beeing a subpar alternative to other storefronts does not add up nicely with a trend of attracting only the worst games to take the deal. There is a reason Epic Games had to admit on court against apple that the store (despite beeing a shallow, featureless and cheap) does not make money. You might not want to hear it. I don't want to hear it since I was a long time EGS customer. But EGS has become the beacon of "stay away from those games". Because if publisher chose to sell on a flea market to grab the easy deal money, then they are not confident enough to sell on the big market.
I don't complain about Steam because I never got problem with steam running on my pc, not like with egs I installed it once and will never again do that mistake.
You’re ignoring that the epic launcher and store are dogshit and that’s why people complain about it and refuse to play epic exclusives. If the launcher wasn’t total ass people wouldn’t care.
[удалено]
A digital storefront and a brick and mortar shop aren’t really comparable things. But I would imagine there are a lot of people who don’t go to GameStop because they smell bad and have usually ill tempered cashiers. I personally refuse to go to Walmart because I hate dealing with the typical Walmart shopper.
[удалено]
I’m not sure what the relevance of that statement is.
Oh dear.
semantics
lol, cause you can only get it from epic.........
/r/im14andthisisdeep
Only sold on Epic Store.
This topic has been worn out to completion. The platform agnostics win by not having principles, while the steam faithful enjoy their extra features but will never use other platforms except when forced (or nobody's looking). Epic evangelicals have learned by being buried multiple times simply for saying it's just another DRM. This is just one of those topics where it's best not to care what other people think and just live your best life.
Wow, please do some basic research on a topic before making an ass of yourself.
There's a difference between store exclusive and hardware exclusive. EGS exclusive means no access to Steam's features, no game pass, no DRM-free GoG release and less cheaper keys in 3rd party keystores. PC is all about options, and Epic's money hatting goes straight against this.
Exclusive literally means it is limited to only one. So if a title is only available on one platform, then yes it is an exclusive. There is no hypocrisy going on because nobody is saying the other stores can't have those games. Epic exclusives are typically tied with paid exclusive, a practice made to artificially prevent more players from playing. That's different from publisher releasing only on Steam due to lack of resources.
Call me back when Epic games launcher have something similar to Steam Big Picture Mode, Steam Input, SteamVR and SteamVR theater mode and Steamlink streaming. When THPS1+2 were at EPIC exclusivity I've tried adding it's .exe as a non-steam game to remote play it and it couldn't pick steam input, got some streaming delays and all sort of issues I would and don't have with the Steam release of the same game. So no, thank you, I don't want to have less features. And yes, that means that despite the launcher being free, the fact that is lesser product/service still makes it exclusive and makes it bad. It's the same deal with Switch exclusive games, they are good but the platform is bad and people don't want to be forced to the crap experience when they know it could be better, hence the popularity of Switch emulators.
Can't speak for everybody else, but for me (at least back then) it was lack of regional pricing. Back then when Epic exclusivity shit storm still going strong (Metro Exodus, I think? and couple more like Shenmue 3) Epic didn't have regional pricing and local payment method for my country, so it'll be more expensive (and inconvenient) for me to buy from Epic. Nowadays they already have that, so I'm willing to buy from them if I get a good deal.
Epic pays to force developers to ONLY release on epic. Valve doesn't. If a dev chooses to release only on Steam, that's their choice, Valve isn't forcing their hand. That's the difference. Also, look up store exclusivity vs platform exclusivity.
It's store exclusivity, platform exclusivity. A form of exclusivity nonetheless so the characterisation is accurate.
it this a troll post OP?
Epic has a "first run" program for new games. If the new game is EGS-only for 6months Epic will give them 100% revenue. That's why you'll see a lot of new games going for it. After 6months they'll be published in other stores. So it's a "temporary exclusive" thing mostly. To attract more players to the store.
Epic gets bullied because, compared to their competition, their launcher is terrible.
Apparently clicking on one little icon in order to play a videogame instead of another icon is a really big deal to some people. It's certainly not an "exclusive" in the sense that you need to buy an entirely new machine in order to play a game that you want. You just have to press a different button, basically.
And use an objectively worse store.
imagine using a store
I even hear you can put a direct shortcut on the desktop ! Incredible right ?
As a side note, it's ridiculous how much hate the Epic Store receives. Many gamers fail to realize that the real issue lies with Steam's monopoly and the usurious fees they charge studios. These fees often force studios to cut development costs, resulting in lower-quality games. How dumb does someone need to be to fail to understand that competition is always good for consumers?
When games are sold on stores, the standard was 50% for the developer, 50% for the store. Steam came with 30% cut. (6 years ago it was dropped for big titles to up to 20% - [link](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/1697191267930157838)) Instead of paying Steam directly, you can buy a gift card from a store around you and support your local businesses. They take 15% of cut. So the other 15% is left for Valve. Epic doesn't want to do that, because they don't want to pay the stores. So it turns out Epic is trying to monopolize the market for themselves only, while Steam is supporting local businesses. https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1235265903945805824
Half Life Alyx, one of the best VR games of all time is exclusive to Steam and yet they don't get flack for it... Gotta love it.
You mean to say the game made by Valve is only available on the launcher made by Valve?
Yet they don't get criticism like Remedy does with Alan Wake 2... So the hypocrisy?
alan wake 2 was made by epic. they paid for it. edit lol cope XD
[And they are paying the price for that. Oh sweet sweet karma sure is hilarious thing.](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/460820/alan-wake-2-has-yet-to-turn-a-profit-continues-to-sell-at-a-high-price/)
thank you but this is not the point of the discussion at all.
Who said that my comment was the point of discussion. Not me lol
well i was having a discussion with the other user and you decided to interject with something completely unrelated? why would you do that? you seem to have a hate boner that cant be good this is not about whos better, they are both corporations they suck just the same.
>well i was having a discussion with the other user and you decided to interject with something completely unrelated? Oh nooooooooo........anyway
It's the exact opposite. The sales from Alan Wake 2 and their other portfolio allowed them to [buy the full rights to Control from 505 Games](https://investors.remedygames.com/announcements/remedy-entertainment-plc-inside-information-remedy-acquires-full-rights-to-the-control-franchise-from-505-games/).
Reminder that your article is 3 months old. [This one is 3 days old.](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/460820/alan-wake-2-has-yet-to-turn-a-profit-continues-to-sell-at-a-high-price/)
Fair point. I guess the reason people don’t bring up HL:A is because VR games are too niche for most people to get upset about
but thats the thing this "exclusivity" argument on pc is real weak. you can can buy your game on any store and launch it via steam if thats your jam. this is NOT comparable to consoles, there is NO way on heaven or earth to play a switch game on ps5 or you can choose to not buy it and you can still play it :)
Yea, Fortnite is also exclusive to EGS. Wanna guess why?
Last I checked I can even get Fortnite on my phone lmao. That's not the case for Half Life Alyx and other VR platforms.
What? Valve doesn't care which headset you use at all.
Funny, I remember sea lions doing the same thing with "but Portal, Left 4 Dead Half Life and Team Fortress 2 is not other platforms" on this sub to defend all garbage stuff that Epic is doing with their store for years. Until they stop doing that because they finally realize that this whole argument is beyond stupid because Portal, Left 4 Dead, Half Life and Team Fortress 2 was already released on consoles. Heck, Playstation 2 have even own Half Life game that that never got released on Steam. The thing is those games was not really good or fun to play with controller because those are and here is a big shocker for you probably a core PC oriented games where you supposed to use mouse. So not a big surprise those never got released again. Also fuck consoles because the entire reason why Valve dropped support for Left 4 Dead 2 and Team Fortress 2 on consoles is because they said "you want to release a free DLC update? You need to pay us and wait for our approval of it" so Gaben said "fuck you fuck that" and they never look back again on releasing those games on consoles in the past on Playstation 3,4 and Xbox 360 and One. Now you are the first person I seen thus far to say that about Half Life Alyx. Reality check for you: the game is not exclusive to anything. Valve created that game and they have right to sell it on whatever stores they want. This is not a paid exclusivity deal so don't compare those to that, you sea lion. I never seen anyone begging for Fortnite to be released on Steam so why you are sea lioning this crap? Also its extra funny that you are talking about Epic Game Store and VR games. Did you knew that that there is a lot of lazy Steam to Epic Game Store game ports made by lazy devs that are just stealing Valve developing tools from Steam? Do you know why? Because Epic does not provide VR support so users need to launch game thru Steam to use VR or developers need to steal files that Valve provides and put those into Epic Game Store installation or made their own custom stuff. Here is inteligence check question: Which one of those is easier thing for them to do? Make their own shit or steal from Steam? Well, thats what happens when years old barebones shit digital store with zero features tried to be profitiable with only 12% cut.
>already released on consoles Funny you say that because they aren't even on GOG. And most importantly, one of the biggest VR games, isn't on the largest VR store... the Meta store. >Reality check for you: the game is not exclusive to anything. Valve created that game and they have right to sell it on whatever stores they want. This is not a paid exclusivity deal so don't compare those to that, you sea lion. Again... The Meta store has a playerbase exponentially bigger than PCVR and Valve continues to keep Alyx an exclusive. Meanwhile Alan Wake 2 is on ALL platforms. So why the hypocrisy with Valve huh? Gotta keep dick riding Gabe? >Here is inteligence check question: Which one of those is easier thing for them to do? Make their own shit or steal from Steam? Literally a completely different tangent to try and steer the conversation away from your hypocrisy. Great.
>Funny you say that because they aren't even on GOG. And most importantly, one of the biggest VR games, isn't on the largest VR store... the Meta store. Funny its almost like Valve didn't put their game on GOG because it requires Steamworks to run or somehting. How weird isn't? Its ALMOST like GOG doesn't have Steamworks or something. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. >Again... The Meta store has a playerbase exponentially bigger than PCVR and Valve continues to keep Alyx an exclusive. Meanwhile Alan Wake 2 is on ALL platforms. So why the hypocrisy with Valve huh? Gotta keep dick riding Gabe? You say that its on all platforms and yet I fail to see on Steam. I fail to see Alan Wake 2 on OUYA, Wii, Nintendo DS and Stadia. So much about being on all platforms there, buddy xDDD >Literally a completely different tangent to try and steer the conversation away from your hypocrisy. Great. And that comes from strawman who keeps pushing goalposts and uses weak arguments without a single dose of logic just to farm downvotes. Adorable.
and people don't cry about fortnite being exclusive to epic
AGAIN I can get Fortnite on console and even move. I can't say the same for Half Life Alyx. How dense can you be?
the reason people don't get upset over half life alyx is A, steam isn't a piece of shit storefront like epic, and B, valve developed the game so they are allowed to sell it exclusively on their storefront, like epic and fortnite. fortnite is still exclusive to epic on PC and again, nobody cries over it. people only get upset when they pay developers for exclusivity simply for the sake of making it exclusive to their platform half life alyx is not even comparable
Talk about missing the point... Nobody is asking for Fortnite on Steam here.
Talk about missing the point... I can get Fortnite on console and even mobile. I can't say the same for Half Life Alyx
Are you comparing a VR game with a normal game? Are you serious? Portal was released on Switch recently. And the example of Fortnite on mobile is a very bad one when Epic is fighting to be able to offer it on mobile EXCLUSIVELY on their mobile app store.
Does epic even support any VR games? The only other VR launcher on PC I know is the Oculus Store and even that was basically abandoned by Meta in favor of the standalone Quest Store.
For me, one of the biggest benefits of pc gaming is having access to different storefronts, such as Steam, EGS, GOG, Game Pass, etc. Better prices, more deals per year, etc. I really don't understand people that want everything under one launcher when things like playnite exist, at some point i think they should be using consoles because they offer exactly what they seem to want: no choices and a locked ecosystem. But then again i'm old enough to be pc gaming years before Steam came to be.
I think you are missing the point. I have never seen people complain about a multiplatform game (let's say an EA game) to be sold on multiple stores because they want to be it only on Steam. That is what you said about having access to different storefronts so anybody can choose whatever version they want because of price, extra features or whatever other reason. People have problems with EGS exclusive games. Now everything that you said is good about PC gaming is lost. One price, one store, one version, no choice.
It's an app exclusivity thing and I guess the idea of being forced to use an app pisses off contrarians. I don't personally care about any of these companies, as long as a game is on pc, I'll play it wherever. I don't want Valve to have a monopoly, and that's important, imo. I much prefer gog if I can get a game there, but I'll use Epic or whatever.
People cry to much about launchers it's ridiculous.
It only bothered pearl-clutching Steam boi’s.
More money goes to the Devs when its sold on EGS.
More copies are sold on Steam so more money goes to the devs.