• joelfromaus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe less investment in trying to monopolise the market and more investment in developing their shopping platform so it’s not a smouldering turd.

    • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, if I’m reading that right they’re complaining that they’re stuck at phase one of enshitification - lose money on aquiring users. The reason behind that is they’re not able to monopolize the market for their games. “These damn mobile stores won’t let us turn the corner and put the clamps on our users. Fix it please.”

    • PrMinisterGR@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you count all of Steam’s features (Steam Input, Big Picture Mode, Proton etc), then Epic has decades of catching up to do. The problem is that usually executives will choose the “easy way out” of problems, so let’s just give free games instead of making a good platform.

  • Desistance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Using dishonest tactics to claw away market share won’t work with gamers. Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Steam got to where it is by good will, good prices and good features.

      Well, eventually.

      When Steam was first released, the running joke was “steaming pile of shit”. It was slow, unreliable and only a couple of shades of green away from the worst color in the world. People complained about the birth of “always online” games and about paying full price but not even getting a box with it.

      It’s not exactly unassailable now either. It’s my platform of choice as a user but for indie developers, the 30% cut is brutal and last I used it, the Steamworks SDK was pretty rough. The app itself also has a lot of legacy bloat like a built in MP3 player.

      It’s ahead of the rest but I think “good will, good prices and good features” might be an overly romantic take on “it’s where all my games already are”.

      • beefcat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the 30% cut is brutal

        This part always confuses me. When Steam started allowing non-Valve games on their storefront, 30% was considered a bargain compared to selling your games at retail. In fact, PC versions of games were often $10 cheaper than their console counterparts specifically because distribution and platform fees were lower. It wasn’t until MW2 came out that PC prices started reflecting console prices.

        • sosodev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s confusing to you that manufacturing, shipping, and selling physical copies of a game was more expensive than digital distribution? The world is very different today. Digital distribution is the norm and everybody knows you don’t need 30% to make it sustainable.

          • beefcat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s confusing to you that manufacturing, shipping, and selling physical copies of a game was more expensive than digital distribution?

            That is not what is confusing to me.

            Digital distribution is the norm and everybody knows you don’t need 30% to make it sustainable.

            I’m not sure I buy this. Epic’s 12% is the bare minimum just to cover basic infrastructure costs for distributing modern AAA games. It doesn’t even include transaction fees, which vary based on which payment method the user selects (whereas Steam and other storefronts eat these as part of their 30% cut).

            Simply sustaining your existing platform is also not enough. Where Epic runs a barebones storefront and client with little in the way of useful features beyond “download game and keep it updated”, storefronts like GOG and Steam take their actual profit and re-invest it in improving their platform for everyone. Think of all the time and money that goes into making things like Steam Input, Proton, or even GOG themselves fixing up older games for modern PCs.

            The fact that it has been 5 years and Epic still hasn’t been able to make their 12% cut break even speaks volumes.

            • sosodev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Epic’s 12% doesn’t do much because they’re constantly burning money trying to find more revenue. It’s obvious they’re not doing anything efficiently. They also have far fewer sales than Steam which further hurts their bottom line.

              The standard internet payment processors take 3% as their cut.

              With modern cloud systems we can quickly distribute files globally for tiny amounts of money.

              The truth is that Valve makes a ton of money off of this fee. It’s great that they contribute to open source projects but plenty of companies make similar contributions with a fraction of the resources.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Valve is constantly looking for ways to help the customer, just in their own weird ass way. Having linux as a competitive option to windows and being able to refund/return digital games, as well as a built in mod searcher and loader being some of the things they brought to the platform because Valve employees themselves are gamers and want their platform to be useful towards gamers needs

        • el_bhm@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Refunding/returning digital games is an outcome of a lawsuit if I remember correctly

        • Fungah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they do hell the consumer. And agree it’s weird. But would argue against that being their goal with the caveat that what I’m about to say makes no real difference to anything.

          I think they’re looking to increase profits first and foremost. However, because they’re not answerable to shareholders, they understand that the best way to do this is by building loyalty and ensuring “stickiness” loyalty. ¹

          It’s still about money. They just understand that the safest way to make it is by having a long term view and not burning people.

          • Kedly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think its both tbh. Money is certainly a factor, we live in a Capatalist society, the more money you have, the more you can do and influence, so even companies with the best of intentions will focus on profits. But with the shit Valve does, like the Steam Deck being a Linux machine (and thus open source), and working through the legal hassle of designing and making developers agree to digital item returns/refunds, I’m thoroughly convinced Valve generally does just want to make the gaming scene better as well because the employees themselves are also gamers

            • Fungah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think they just understand whatost executibes are too greedy / shit sighted / stupid to understand. Doing what’s right for consumers drives revenue. It can be good for the consumer and motivated by profit. They’re not mutually exclusive.

        • jas0n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah yeah, I was a bit of a hold out going to 1.6, but eventually all the servers started disappearing. That was like ~8 years ago… right?

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the 30% cut is brutal

        Reportedly Epic’s 12% barely covers costs and would not if they included transaction fees. 20% seems to be the bare minimum if you want a store to actually have good service, and then I’m giving Valve additional credit for sinking boatloads of money into general infrastructure, in the long term Proton alone is worth those 10%. Much unlike the rest of the stores (exception GOG) which take the same 30% and are run by humongous multinationals.

        …and then there’s itch.io. If you’re a small and scrappy indie very much an option: They’re also small and scrappy. And they’ll probably shout at you if you try to upload a 20G game I very much doubt their servers would survive an AAA launch. OTOH, reportedly their average revenue split is 8% (customers can choose).

        • sosodev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that Steam sells a ton of copies every single day. The vast majority of Valve’s fortune has come from that fee. People jump to defend Steam but it’s already been established by lawsuits against other major corporations that a 30% cut is mostly driven by greed.

          • Gawdl3y@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The 30% cut was industry standard for digital distribution for years. Google, Apple, and numerous other players all took 30% as standard.

            That being said, Steam hasn’t taken a flat 30% for years now - their standard agreement starts at 30%, decreases to 25% after the first $10m in sales, then decreases further to 20% after $50m.

            Furthermore, Valve has done more in terms of providing services, APIs/libraries, and end-user features (all with no additional fee to the developers or consumers) than any other game storefront has. I’d say they more than justify their cut.

            • sosodev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Industry standard by massive corporations synonymous with corporate greed. Boy am I glad the fee decreases after $10m in sales. That will go a long way with helping out indie devs.

              It’s okay to like Steam because they’ve provided us with a good way of purchasing and playing games. I like Steam but we don’t have defend things that are obviously greedy.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        “it’s where all my games already are.”

        My pet theory is this was realized by epic and so the only reason they give games away is to “help” users build a library they won’t want to “leave behind” for another store platform. Once they reach the market share they were aiming for I fully expect the practice to stop.

        • Red_October@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Moreover, just like that guy, Epic thinks that’s the only thing that matters, or at least the biggest issue. The idea that gamers might not use them because their service is actually just worse seems to have never crossed their minds in any serious fashion.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, there’s bloat from old features, but there’s also quality tools built into Steam, such as Steam Input and Proton.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, eventually.

        When Steam was first released, the running joke was

        Has anything ever worked perfectly when first released?

    • pascal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If that was true, EA would have been dead in the water 12 years ago.

      • pandacoder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?

        Remember Valve is the company and Steam is the storefront/launcher.

        Epic is the company, EGS is the storefront/launcher.

        EA is the company, Origin is (was?) the storefront/launcher.

        • owiseedoubleyou@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Didn’t EA shut down Origin or at least make it optional?

          Technically no. EA now just calls it “The EA App”

        • Astaroth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Mass Effect Legendary Edition actually included ME3’s multiplayer I might’ve considered installing Origin again.

        • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope. Star Wars Squadrons (which I got from Epic, BTW) required me to download and install Origin first. I’d be salty as fuck about that if all parties involved hadn’t already guaranteed that it was a game that I was never going to pay for anyway.

    • Rose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, making it a requirement for playing your physical copy of Half-Life definitely looks like good will to me.

      • Desistance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And in turn diminished the industry’s piracy problm for many years, making PC Games market a stable ecosystem instead of letting all of PC gaming die.

          • yamanii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes? How can you possibly deny that? Steam was able to claw a market in russia, a country famous for piracy. Gaben was right, convenience with good prices trumps everything.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, cracks still exist, but I’ve stopped downloading them in favour of buying off Steam because the user experience was a lot better. I’m sure I can’t be the only one to do this.

          • beefcat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Before Steam existed i would even crack games I had legitimate copies of solely because pre-Steam DRM was such an enormous pain in the ass to deal with.

            Even today Denuvo is a veritable paradise compared to what DRM used to be like.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    On one hand, thanks to the nonstop giveaways, I have way more games on Epic than I do on Steam, so I have a reason to continue using Epic.

    On the other hand, Epic’s launcher runs like shit, constantly refreshes my library page, slow as hell, glitchy as hell, and makes me feel dirty when I use it.

    Steam is just so cozy and is on the whole a much more enjoyable PC gaming experience. I imagine 95% of Epic users are people like me: sign in on Thursdays for the free game and then bounce.

      • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know about its existence, but I’m not sure how safe is it as a way to prevent Epic (and potentially Tencent) from tracking my personal information.

    • MartinXYZ@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      thanks to the nonstop giveaways, I have way more games on Epic than I do on Steam

      I still have more games on Steam, however, Itch.io has had a couple of insane bundles in the last couple of years, which mean I have way more games and content on Itch than on Steam, which I did not see coming. I still use Steam the most, though, because I’m used to their interface and it works really well on Linux.

    • RisingSwell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I talked to their support about the library force refresh and it’s apparently intended. That library refresh is literally the only reason the EGS isn’t open all the time like Steam is. Random data usage is bad, and can fuck off. I do not need random lag spikes.

  • Krudler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My launcher shows that I have 379 games from Epic. Not DLC, not demos. Full games.

    I have never given Epic a single cent and I never will. (That is to say, until they offer me something that makes me want to use their platform). They have no killer features - AT ALL.

    • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To make it worse, I have all these games, but I still rarely play them. Not that it’s a bad selection, but between steamdeck, gamepass and just a crazy backlog on Steam makes me rarely think of Epic store.

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well that’s at the crux of it, indeed. Steam has these killer features that enable and empower me as a gamer.

        Then there’s Epic that still doesn’t have controller support.

          • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s disingenuous. The games have controller support, as you’d expect them to. EGS itself doesn’t have an outside-the-games input layer like Steam Input.

            But you can always load up an EGS game in Steam as a non-Steam game and have full access to Steam Input on it that way, so why would Epic spend time and effort re-inventing the wheel when they have other priorities?

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But you can always load up an EGS game in Steam as a non-Steam game and have full access to Steam Input on it that way, so why would Epic spend time and effort re-inventing the wheel when they have other priorities?

              Why would Epic implement a feature when I could just run Epic games through Steam? Why don’t I just use Steam then?

            • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              More accurately: the games have support for Xbox styled controllers, because Windows ships with support for that. However, they usually don’t have support for PlayStation controllers unless the game actively adds support for them, or Steam Input deals with converting the controller inputs to Xbox format on the fly. Most of the time, Epic exclusives do neither of the above.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok cool that makes way more sense.

              But… If I am gonna buy the game elsewhere and then port it into steam, for no discount… Why not just buy it on steam, and not bother with the extra steps?

              And by that I mean, it sounds like a waste of time to buy from epic, since I get more features for the same price elsewhere. So whats such an important priority?

    • phx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      LoL. Yeah I’ve got a ton and I’ve never actually launched a single one

    • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I spent about $600 with epic. All of that was on fortnite skins. None of it on games.

        • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hey man, it provided value to my life… its a fun game, i play it quite a bit. Plus half of that was for my kid, he would ask for vbucks every birthday and Christmas for years.

    • koavf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “killer feature” is that they pay more to the developers, so if you are getting the exact same game on (e.g.) Steam versus Epic Games, then whomever actually made the game gets more money from the Epic sale. Isn’t that a good thing?

      (Note that I may be conflating the publisher with the developer, but either way, it’s still the case that less money is taken by intermediaries, which is a good thing.)

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except they only do that because its the only way to get publishers to use them over steam, and once they have a reliable customer base they will reneg on that generosity to gain profit.

        We know this business strategy. It will not stay that way.

          • beefcat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            this is how we get companies like walmart and amazon.

            they roll in, throwing bags of money into a bottomless pit as long as it takes to amass a large customer base and ruin existing competitors. Then they start enshittifying, and everyone wonders where all the competition went.

            • koavf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, Steam are the monopoly now! The only other option is Good Old Games and for weird indie titles Itch.io.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Until then, what? You as the consumer have no incentive to use their worse service, and publishers clearly arent that enticed by it for how few exclusives the store gets?

            Or until then, you want to reward a bait and switch that you know is a bait and switch to try and trick you into using a worse product?

            Which option are you excited about here?

            • koavf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Their service is in no way worse: I buy games, and I get them.

              I’m excited about the fact that someone provides an alternative to the monopoly that is Steam.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a reason for developers to use them, not for consumers to use them.

        EPICs anti-customer practices (such as trying to make everything exclusive) are reasons for consumers not to use them.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And are those because Steam is trying to pressure them into being exclusive on Steam? Or did they just not bother releasing anywhere else?

            If a developer just wants to release on Epic and nowhere else they can do that. My issue comes from Epic approaching games that have already announced a Steam release asking for exclusivity, and having no interest in hosting the game if they don’t accept the exclusivity offer.

            • koavf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are almost 40,000 entries, I obviously cannot answer for all of them.

              Still waiting for you to answer my question.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well you sound like someone trying to have a good faith discussion and attempting to continue would be a good use of my time.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, because epic has been engaging in anti consumer practices from the start. This is literally the only category epic has a leg up on steam, and if they didn’t need to bully their way into the marketplace, I have no reason to believe they’d treat creators any better than they currently do customers

        edit: The revelation that they are running the store at a loss just furthers me not believing they are helping developers from the goodness of their heart, it shows they’re likely running the Walmart strategy of using their vast wealth to choke out their competition until there is none, and then once they have a monopoly, jack everything up, which’d probably include their cut of the pie

        • koavf@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, I do, or else I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I’d prefer the publisher gets money over a middleman store. Isn’t that preferable?

            • koavf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How about you write what you mean and have quality conversation in the future?

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How about you write what you mean

                I did. Its a standard phrase used by people in conversation. See defintion #2 below.

                Below definition is from here

                you think

                1. A question one uses at the end of a sentence to express uncertainty. We’re not going to get into trouble—you think?
                2. A sarcastic rhetorical question used as a retort when someone states the obvious. A: “Wow, I bet that fire is really hot.” B: “You think?”

                and have quality conversation in the future?

                Quality is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. /shrug

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was up for a Steam competitor. I signed up for the Epic store a few years back. Tried to get the first free game. It wasn’t available in my region despite being plastered all over the store in my region. The exact same thing happened the next month. Both of those games were available on Steam in my region at some pretty low prices by then.

    Then, Epic started paying for exclusivity, making games not available in my region at all. I had at least deleted their stupid app by then anyway. Fuck Epic entirely.

      • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        My only complaint about GOG is that developers treat it as an afterthought. Plenty of games that stop receiving updates, or are pulled out of the store entirely, while the Steam version remains maintained. Also, the required lack of DRM makes multiplayer online games relatively scarce.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        GOG is great. I have an account and have bought a few games there when I think of it. I just wish they had Souls games.

    • GreenM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Used to have similar problem with Steam back in the day.

      Edit: I like how some people disagree that i experienced something by downvote. It’s not like i can change it or something 😅 👌

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shocking literally no one, the game store that took a shot at the king with store that (initially) didn’t have baseline stuff like reviews and a cart, and tried to get by on giving away product and paying a bunch of money to make stuff exclusive isn’t doing so hot financially.

  • ericflo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    EGS losing money has been great for gamers, as they continue to give away free games in an attempt to claw any marketshare. Gamers continue to win as long as this situation lasts. But reading these comments, nobody seems to recognize this.

    • BluesF@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gamers lose when the store shuts down and you lose access to all of the games you got for free, or worse actually paid for.

    • specfreq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      ESG losing money is great for me just on principle, Tim Sweeney can go fuck himself.

    • beefcat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Consumers also won when a Walmart would open up in their neighborhood and run the local stores out of business by selling everything at a loss.

      Of course, once the competition was eliminated, Walmart stopped selling things at a loss.

  • Rose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no idea why this is newsworthy. Epic’s own 2019 documents and testimony in the Apple trial showed that the company did not expect the store to be profitable until 2024 or even 2027. The strategy of heavy investment and operating at a loss to turn a profit later worked for Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, and many others. Even this week, there are headlines like “Elon Musk Says SpaceX’s Starlink Achieves Breakeven Cash Flow”.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But all the other companies had in mind something else besides “gotta beat the other guys” and actually brought something to the table.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a crazy idea for Epic. Instead of paying a fortune for exclusives, leverage the lower 12% cut and have game publishers sell for less (so that the publisher makes the same amount on Steam and Epic)

    • query@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And GOG. They used to have several games up there, and then delisted them.

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So why can’t they sell their game for $56 on Epic and $70 on Steam? They’d make about the same money per sale on each?

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most likely reason, contracts.

          Example Nike sales shoes directly at the same price as footlocker. Why dont they under cut footlocker? They have a contracts that says they won’t under cut footlocker

          There could br an issue like that but well you can make new contracts

        • Rose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Valve prohibit that, according to the lawsuit filed by Wolfire Games.

          • SuperSpruce@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s no way that can be legal. I generally support Valve but that is monopolistic as hell.

          • Voyajer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That only applies to the steam keys valve supplies to developers that have a 0% cut. Also doing regional pricing would be a massive headache if that were true due to different stores having different recommended price conversions.

            • Rose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The claim specifically mentions Epic and quotes a Valve employee who made statements to the effect of it being prohibited, irrespective of whether a Steam key is involved. Read from page 47 and pay attention to the last paragraphs of page 55.

        • Knightfox@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If the developer chooses to do so themselves then it’s likely ok, but forcing the developer to do so likely violates some sort of law.

          I imagine that when Epic instituted it’s lower percentage they hoped that developers would sell exclusively on their platform for higher profits. Instead the developers decided to sell on both platforms and just make a larger percentage on the Epic sales. From the developer perspective it would have been wise in the long run to lower prices so that Epic could grow, but that hurts their short term profits and also stymied Epic’s potential.

          If Epic’s store grew to truly rival Steam more developers might have jumped ship, but to do so prematurely would be losing a large portion of the potential customers.

          Ultimately Epic had to develop a full Steam clone quickly while all Steam had to do was not suck for the end user.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would the developer sell at a loss to help Epic out? What’s in it for the developer?

            • Knightfox@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well it shouldn’t be at a loss. As the person I responded to pointed out, Epic had a lower fee than Steam so the developer can sell on Epic for less than they would on Steam and make the same amount of money.

              Doing so wouldn’t be at a loss, but it wouldn’t make as much profit as possible.

              If the developers did choose to sell on Epic for less than it would bolster the Epic store and potentially lead to more people moving to Epic.

              If Steam’s fee is 30% and Epic’s is 15% the developer could sell on Steam for $70 and make $49 and they could sell on Epic for $60 to make $51. That’s a 4% increase in profits.

              If the Epic store takes off and a large enough user base switches they could maybe increase the Epic price to $62.5 which would result in an additional 4% increase in profits.

              Epic’s deal is that they’re offering a lower rate, but the developers aren’t sharing the benefits of that to help Epic grow. If they did the long term profits would likely exceed the short term.

              • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again, why would the developer care about making Epic grow? It’s the store’s responsibility to offer good service, you don’t see Nintendo trying to help out Target or anything like that now do ya?

                • Knightfox@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  hing like that now do ya?

                  I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or if you really don’t understand. If you don’t understand I’d be happy to elaborate.

            • vxx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Epic paid $146 to make borderlands exclusive to epic. The game kind of flopped.

  • Muffi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Epic Games launcher/store is nothing more than Tencent spyware using “free games” as bait and masquerading as a Steam competitor.

  • daltotron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it actually not profitable or is this one of those tax writeoff bullshit things where it makes them money in some indirect way

    • Poteryashka@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most likely actually non profitable. With crapton of Chinese cash, they can keep paying studios more of a cut than Steam, giveaway games, pay for exclusivity. Their goal right now isn’t to make money, but to take market share

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems to me that the most lucrative thing in gaming is still just making really good games.

    Sure, there’s Steam, but that’s a fluke. The exception that proves the rule. Just get back to actual game making.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, Steam is owned by Valve, and they make some pretty good games. Half-Life, Portal are some of the best series out there. I recently played HL Alyx and it was a banger.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh what a suprise. Maybe… Just maybe…spend some bucks on developing the store to be viable(!) competition to steam. And not just a ghastly shit-shop, where people only exist because of the freebies and partially because of the exclusives (i pirate the exclusives. Fuck exclusives).

    Even GOG galaxy is a better client/store and they don’t have the same budget.

    Epic sucks sweaty, hairy monkeyballs. And i would welcome competition for the apex.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I started playing Epic Games after support was added on Heroic Games Launcher. But I ain’t spending money on them because there’s no guarantee it will still be working tomorrow.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do through playnite. Using their own launcher for anything else than playing a game is horrible

  • ArdMacha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whether its games stores or streaming services, the media seems to constantly miss the obvious, lack of accounted profits means no tax to pay…