Why you dont like epic game store?

[Apeirogon]

As it says.

Because my experience from using for some time is same as from using steam, can be described by word which begins from the letter "s". And dont think that this word is a word "super"...
So I dont understand reason of all hype and blames around opening of a new "porterhouse" which better/worse than another "porterhouse".

[InsanityBringer]

tbh the biggest objection is them rapidly snapping up exclusivity deals (especially of kickstarted games that explicitly said they'd be on Steam or something else) while not actually improving the storefront much or adding features users want. The store's hard to navigate, things like play time aren't tracked, and so on. And in the middle of this Tim Sweeney's busy throwing fuel on the fire making absolutely absurd and comical remarks while everyone around him is busy tearing them apart...

[JadedLexi]

Tim Sweeney painting himself as the savior of video games and making valve out to be the immortal enemies he's fought against for generations is probably why. and that's not even an exaggeration.

[Cherno]

I think it's the fault of the developers who take Epic's money when they already promised a steam release. Is Epic forcing them to make the deal? I don't think so.

I bought my first EGS game a few days ago, Rebel Galaxy Outlaw. Since it only comes out next week, I can't say how my experience with the store will be, but as long as I can simply open it, select my game and hit a "Play" button, I'm already happy.

[Rachael]

I think it's the fault of the developers who take Epic's money when they already promised a steam release. Is Epic forcing them to make the deal? I don't think so.

You ever heard of the term "a deal you can't refuse?"

People are strapped for cash. I honestly can't blame the developers at all for taking Epic's money. If they want it - have at it, Hauss! Spread the wealth around a bit... especially when it's Epic's money we're talking about here, where they have it in the boat loads.

The exclusivity deals are scummy, sure, but as long as Epic is giving away cash, I say let them.

[wildweasel]

I think it's the fault of the developers who take Epic's money when they already promised a steam release. Is Epic forcing them to make the deal? I don't think so.

Epic aren't really the ones forcing it, but in a lot of cases, it boils down to, "sell out for exclusivity, or you will not be able to afford to keep making your game."

[Cherno]

I agree, but I still won't let that argument stand: The developers calculated their financial future based on a release on steam before the EPG came into existence... And suddenly the cash runs out if they don't sign with Epic? Give me a break The videogame industry has always been a tough business with companies starting up and going under all the time. They wouldn't all go belly up if they honored their promises of a steam release, but some of them probably would... And this chance is lessened by the EGS deal. So it boils down to more cash = better financial security. How surprising! I don't blame them at all, after all these are often small teams where even one mediocre title can mean hard times for the developers and their families.

[Rachael]

So it boils down to more cash = better financial security. How surprising!

Exactly!

And I am sorry to tell you this, but you would be a fool to turn that down. There's a fine line between principle and practicality, and when you're looking at possible studio closure and company shutdown, it's very easy to cross that line.

Yeah - it's mighty fucking inconvenient to your users that they can no longer get your game on steam. But the lump sum of cash you get in return for that more than makes up for it. And if you play your cards right, it also ensures that you will be financially stable enough to do another game, afterward, too, whether you get the exclusivity offer again or not!

It sucks for us - but indies need it. Sorry but they just do.

What would bother me personally, though, is if a triple-A studio (say, Activision or EA) did the same thing. They don't need that money at all - but they would do it out of sheer spite and greed, and the "fuck you" to the end-user is just an added bonus for them.

[wildweasel]

What would bother me personally, though, is if a triple-A studio (say, Activision or EA) did the same thing. They don't need that money at all - but they would do it out of sheer spite and greed, and the "fuck you" to the end-user is just an added bonus for them.

Borderlands 3? :rolleyes:

[Rachael]

What would bother me personally, though, is if a triple-A studio (say, Activision or EA) did the same thing. They don't need that money at all - but they would do it out of sheer spite and greed, and the "fuck you" to the end-user is just an added bonus for them.

Borderlands 3? :rolleyes:

Oh, yes, that.

That's a perfect example.

[Chris]

You ever heard of the term "a deal you can't refuse?"

How fitting, considering where modern understanding of that term comes from.

People are strapped for cash. I honestly can't blame the developers at all for taking Epic's money.

It depends. In my view, a promise is a promise. If you advertise a Steam release, get people to give you money (kickstarter, pre-orders) based on that promise, or even get them excited and emotionally invested in your game using that promise, then take it away for no good reason, people have a right to be upset (especially if you then also mock or attack strawman arguments over why people don't like the EGS, as a particular dev recently did). It's one thing if you're under actual financial pressure where there's a good chance you may not have the funds to finish the game, but many of the most prominent cases haven't been that (Metro Exodus, Phoenix Point, Borderlands 3, Rocket League*, etc). They sacrifice the good will of their audience/fans for corporate money, which is the definition of sell-out.

In the case of Metro Exodus, the game was finished. Boxes and other materials were made or in the process of being made before the deal, and the game was in the final stretch of testing and certification (and neither the devs or publisher were financially unstable). It was so late in production that the boxes had the Steam logo and mention of needing Steam to redeem the key (which was covered over by an EGS sticker). This was made worse by the publisher trying to hide what the deal meant for people who got preorders.

In the case of Pheonix Point, the devs have flat-out stated they had the money from kickstarter and various investors to not only finish the game as advertised, but also support it into the future. They also stated that they knew the deal would cause some people to cancel preorders and they were fine with it. So fine with it that even if 100% of preorders were canceled and all kickstarter money refunded, the investors and Epic money would keep them in the green financially (i.e. they treated peoples' kickstarter money as an interest-free loan with which to get investor money).

* Rocket League isn't technically EGS exclusive... yet. Though they've made it clear the Steam release isn't long for this world.


More onto the EGS itself, it's clear Epic either doesn't know how to make a storefront, or is seriously jumping the gun before it's ready. Just look at the kerfuffle with their first store-wide sale. There were developers that were contractually not allowed to have their game on sale but Epic put everything on sale regardless. Their store was not set up to handle some games not going on sale, so the only choice these devs had was to remove the games completely from the store. The store was (and still is) lacking a shopping cart, and somehow Epic didn't anticipate that people would want to buy a bunch of games at once while they were on sale, forcing those people to purchase each game individually... which then kicked in anti-fraud measures that locked people out of their EGS accounts.

They've also made bold statements about the lack of user reviews in their store being a good thing. While, yes, Steam does occasionally have issues with review bombs (which they've actually added counter-measures for), they were also a useful tool for people to get warned about issues a particular game may have or lies a developer/publisher tries to pass off. I'm sure publishers love this, but it's not consumer-friendly in the least.

More personally (an issue which I understand few people will actually share), Epic's attitude toward my OS leaves me literally unable to use their store. Even if I wanted to, I can't use EGS. Whereas Steam, GoG, itch.io, Battle.net, Origin, UPlay, and even Bethesda.Net work either natively or with tools like Wine. EGS doesn't even work under Wine. As much as I abhor Steam DRM, I do have to give huge props to Valve for the money and work they're putting into Wine/Proton, not only offering Linux games for Linux users to buy (something GoG and itch.io do too), but also putting in the effort to get Windows games to work seamlessly on Linux, to the point where running the Linux Steam client will show certain Windows-only games like Cuphead or Doom 2016 or Dark Souls 3 (and a bunch more) as being available, and you can just plain buy it, click Play, and it launches (on top of that, games played this way are counted as being played on Linux, so they'll know you're not using Windows which Wine can otherwise make it seem like). If one of the >150 currently whitelisted games doesn't work, Valve also promises support.

And this isn't even touching on other problems that have come up for EGS, like privacy issues (they've been caught snooping on Steam's files, and we only have Epic's word that it's harmless), or Epic's connection with Tencent which is connected to the Chinese government.

[Graf Zahl]

You ever heard of the term "a deal you can't refuse?"

How fitting, considering where modern understanding of that term comes from.

People are strapped for cash. I honestly can't blame the developers at all for taking Epic's money.

It depends. In my view, a promise is a promise. If you advertise a Steam release, get people to give you money (kickstarter, pre-orders) based on that promise, or even get them excited and emotionally invested in your game using that promise, then take it away for no good reason, people have a right to be upset (especially if you then also mock or attack strawman arguments over why people don't like the EGS, as a particular dev recently did). It's one thing if you're under actual financial pressure where there's a good chance you may not have the funds to finish the game, but many of the most prominent cases haven't been that (Metro Exodus, Phoenix Point, Borderlands 3, Rocket League*, etc). They sacrifice the good will of their audience/fans for corporate money, which is the definition of sell-out.

In the case of Metro Exodus, the game was finished. Boxes and other materials were made or in the process of being made before the deal, and the game was in the final stretch of testing and certification (and neither the devs or publisher were financially unstable). It was so late in production that the boxes had the Steam logo and mention of needing Steam to redeem the key (which was covered over by an EGS sticker). This was made worse by the publisher trying to hide what the deal meant for people who got preorders.

In the case of Pheonix Point, the devs have flat-out stated they had the money from kickstarter and various investors to not only finish the game as advertised, but also support it into the future. They also stated that they knew the deal would cause some people to cancel preorders and they were fine with it. So fine with it that even if 100% of preorders were canceled and all kickstarter money refunded, the investors and Epic money would keep them in the green financially (i.e. they treated peoples' kickstarter money as an interest-free loan with which to get investor money).

What does this all tell us?
The simple answer is that Epic must be giving away such insane amounts of money that the developers would be idiots to refuse. When it comes to keeping a business afloat all that idealist claptrap you mentioned doesn't mean anything. Job security is more important at the end.
Whether this business strategy works remains to be seen. Pushing a product into the market at such high cost can easily backfire, because it eventually needs to become profitable to be sustainable.

Remember Microsoft and their Windows Phone OS? The strategy behind its launch was similar, they pumped money after more money into the system and for a short time it looked like it could reach critical mass, but when they ultimately had to look at the bottom line it not only cost their CEO the job, it also imploded into utter nothingness in virtually no time once the money-flow dried up.

[Chris]

When it comes to keeping a business afloat all that idealist claptrap you mentioned doesn't mean anything. Job security is more important at the end.

As mentioned for these examples, money and job security wasn't an issue. A developer that's financially stretched is one thing, as I said, but these cases were well in the green. Sacrificing the "idealist claptrap I mentioned", the goodwill of consumers, solely for higher profit margins is the exact thing people rail against the likes of EA and Activision and Bethesda for. Meanwhile companies like CD Projekt RED are praised for not succumbing to that kind of corporate nonsense, even when they were still small.

[Rachael]

@ Chris - I do agree with you about "promises being promises" - and I agree it's pretty scummy for anyone who can afford not to take the cash to go ahead and take it, especially those who were backed by kickstarter campaigns.

I am not trying to defend Epic Games and their shenanigans (which, I think Graf is right, once Tim Sweeney realizes just how much cash he's blowing through on this fuckery, it's going to come to an extremely sudden halt - I doubt it's going to last long into next year once the taxes are filed), and I will refuse to defend the developers who didn't really need the cash but took it anyway, or who maybe did need the cash but did an extreme PR faux pas after the checks and contracts were signed.

But even still, I feel like it's not emphasized enough the developers who actually were suffering before the deals were made. And let's also not forget - Epic giving up money like that also means Epic has less money. If they make it back then all is well and good for them, but I still would rather see more moderate amounts of money in more hands than more money in fewer hands. If that means Tim Sweeney is carelessly throwing his bank notes on the streets of Maryland (metaphorically speaking), then so be it. Maybe that's excessively idealistic of me, but that's just how I am. Regardless, I have said and will continue to say that the EGS exclusivity bullshit is really scummy.

[Graf Zahl]

It is obvious that neither of you has ever been in a situation where serious decisions affecting long term business viability had to be made.
Sure, some of these studios may be "in the green" right now - but are you certain they'll be next year? For some of these developers it comes down to the simple decision whether to buy one or two years' job security or following the ideal. And let me tell you: When you have to care for the future of your employees it's not really a decision anymore.

I have experienced this myself as an employee several years ago where a decision had to be made whether to self-publish a product or sell out for a high price and defer the business risk to the investor, and now take one good guess what the decision was!