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
Only way epic can compete, even with bloody ubisoft launcher, is to remove competition. Improving their store just isnt part of their business plan, if it was they would do it.
Well they’re not gonna cut top salaries, can’t have any of that, it’s bad for business!! Imagine being able to only afford one yacht instead of your standard three! Gotta let those lackeys at the bottom of the pyramid go, what’re they even holding up, anyway? The foundation of the company? Surely not.
I was upset when Epic acquired Rocket League and drove it into the ground, and then I was pissed when Epic paid for exclusivity on ubisoft games. I bought one game on Epic game stores app two years ago and have since claimed every free game they offer every week whether I care to play it or not. I have also repurchased that game on Steam, so literally the only time I even open epic games is to claim the weekly free game and cost them money.
Epic has exclusivity on all Ubisoft games? I stopped buying Ubi games years ago, so I guess that’s fine with me. I hope Ubisoft loses money on that deal.
I don’t LIKE the epic games store, but it is kind of fucking strange, that valve is a company whose literal monopoly is not only not questioned, but specifically celebrated.
Do you guys think e.g. YouTube or redshit is profitable despite of what they say and without “profit” that’s pumped in by investors or mother companies?
it’s just a business,
They get market share by loosing profit then once they are establish enough so most people won’t leave if they change things and they change things and start to make profit.
At least that’s the plan.
Google’s goal with YouTube was never profit. Had it been YT would end up on Google graveyard long time ago. They are looking for market dominance with video streaming which in turn provides a lot of useful data for mining. Ads are there to curb price of whole ordeal a bit.
You can sell access to your PC for the free games from Epic if you choose to. I choose not to install their garbage app, because I have plenty of other games and I don’t need their free bait.
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.
I don’t doubt it, but I’ve been a pretty regular user since 2009, and I’ve never had a game advertised to me on the front page that wasn’t available in my region. In fact, there are games I want that I know aren’t available on Steam here, and the only way to get to the Steam page for them is by using a proxy or VPN. I definitely can’t buy them with my account. It seems pretty amateurish of Epic to advertise unavailable games and to even let me click “buy” before telling me I can’t buy it. Maybe they’ve fixed that by now, but whatever. The paid exclusivity bullcrap showed me where their priorities lie.
There are mistakes being done unintentionally when you develop complex software.
Take my example, Humble showed me Bandai Namco game that I could not even get in a bundle. So out of 10 games, I received 9, while other regions receive 10.
That is even worse than Epic’s (probably honest) mistake.
Humble isn’t trying to compete with Steam or Epic, and they don’t engage in the anti-consumer practice of paying off developers for exclusive access to games.
I’m aware of the complexities of software development. If Epic seriously wanted to compete with Steam, they really should have tried harder to provide a better service instead of trying to buy loyalty through free games and exclusivity contracts.
It’s not amaterish anymore than GOG or Steam giving out free games back in the day. Even before it used to be magazines with free games on CDs. I still have these games in my libraries. It’s widely used strategy by bigger business to start new departments or even child companies. It’s why they say money makes money.
It’s amateurish that their store advertised games to me that were unavailable to me. I’m no code whiz, but it can’t be that hard to chuck in an if (region == false) then !advertise; Valve and GOG don’t seem to have any problems with that.
I have no issue with them giving away free games. Too bad that and the paid exclusives don’t earn them a loyal customer base. Maybe if they’d put more effort into their store. Like maybe not advertising region locked games to regions where they’re not available.
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.
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.
But you have to give Valve credit for supporting Linux gaming witch if gets popular enough will create perfect competition for Windows. imagine system that requires 1GB or RAM instead of 4-5GB when idle , that doesn’t spy on you and is more secure. Perfect for gaming IMHO if taken seriously.
Windows PC gamers and Xbox gamers are more or less the only ones who game on non-*Nix kernels; PlayStation is BSD-derived, Switch is BSD+Android, Steam Deck is of course Linux, a lot of arcade cabinets run on Debian. Gaming on non-Windows platforms is absolutely viable, it’s just being hidden from players by a thin layer of customization.
yes it is, in fact it would be much better experience if properly supported if nothing else because Linux can be modyfied into anything, though free community driven Linux is preferable to Sony’s closed system.
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.
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)
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.
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.
doing regional pricing would be a massive headache if that were true
Aren’t games regionally priced like forever ? I’ve buying key’s in GB because they are cheaper. Also Doesn’t steam lock you out of your games if you bought US version and travel to the other side of the world? I just vaguely remember people complaining about it.
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.
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.
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?
Basically what I’m saying is, there is no reason for the developer to try to help a specific storefront, the developer does not work for the storefront, the developers that release games on Epic are just as much a customer of the store as, well, the customer.
If Epic has a shit storefront, the correct answer isn’t to give it a lower price there to “Help Epic grow”, the correct answer is “Well we’ll just focus on selling it on GOG, Humble Bundle, and Steam”
It is unrealistic to expect or even ask for a developer to give Epic special treatment without proper cause “Just to be nice”, not how the business world works.
We see this all the time offline, or rather, we don’t see it… At no point did Nintendo, Sega, or anyone go “Oh no Toys R Us and KMart are facing tough times, we should lower our prices for those stores to help em out.”
Now if it was a developer with actual stake in Epic, maybe they’d do that… but I don’t see Sweeney handing out large amounts of Epic stock to anyone do you?
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I’m not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they’ll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
I’d argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn’t really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn’t a customer in that sense because they aren’t buying and reselling the product.
Yeah, the developers can say fuck it and not help out Epic, but it just furthers the limited monopoly that Steam is. They can’t complain that Steam takes too big of a cut and then make businesses decisions that are counter to that complaint. It’s like complaining about Reddit but choosing to stay there.
I would agree that Epic is a customer in the sense that they are paying for exclusivity, but I think that contract should also include a reduced sale price in it.
EX: Epic pays the developer X dollars so that the first week of the release it’s sold at -Y% of the MSRP exclusively on Epic. After that they can sell it on other storefronts for the MSRP for Z months (with no sales) or they have to refund the X dollars.
I’d argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn’t really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn’t a customer in that sense because they aren’t buying and reselling the product.
No, you misunderstand what I mean. I’m saying the DEVELOPER of the GAMES is a customer of Epic, what’s Epic selling? Store space in exchange for a cut of the profits. There is no reason for a customer to want to help out a business, they don’t have a stake in the company.
If McDonalds is having a hard time, I don’t pay them double for cheeseburgers to “help em out”, I say “Sucks to be you, but hey we still have a Wendy’s.”
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I’m not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they’ll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
Except they’re still making money selling on Steam, GOG, and Humble Bundle… There’s really nothing in it for them if Epic succeeds and nothing of value lost if Epic shrivels up and dies.
Ah I see, you’re correct, I did misunderstand you. I think your point is true, but still lacks finesse in describing the relationship between developers and digital store fronts. I also think you’re disregarding the benefit that the additional 18% cut the developer gets to keep as well as creating partnership options rather than being stuck with a defacto monopoly.
I also don’t think it’s fair to compare GOG or Humble Bundle with Epic or Steam, their purposes and market share is so much smaller than Steam. Epic isn’t trying to compete with GOG or Humble.
Also, you’re correct that the developer is making money either way, but they are making a larger percentage on sales through Epic. You’re probably right that the developers aren’t taking that into account, but they are materially benefited by its success. If they fail to account for that benefit and Epic fails then it will mean they make less money overall.
I think instead of your McDonalds example a better one would be contractors for a large business. Maybe your business frequently uses an electrical contractor and due to special circumstances the field is exceptionally limited (specialty license or security clearance). There is one contractor available and they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want. So far this company has been really fair and not abused their power, but a new contractor becomes available. The new contractor has an inferior service line and is a bit slower, but they’re also cheaper. You could just ignore the new contractor and what happens happens, but in the real world it’s fairly common for businesses to diversify service contracts to maintain a pool of available contractors.
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
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.
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.
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.
