I hate when a PC game is ONLY available on Epic Games store
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
Honestly we should probably have more places to buy games not just steam. Because remember when gabe newell dies there's no guarantee that steam will still be "good" they are still a corporation. So if epic needs exclusives to keep going we should support that. Competition between corporations is a good thing.
So, it seems like a problem that is solving itself over time. Epic will probably still have exclusives going forward, but I would expect them to target a few high-value exclusives like they got with Alan Wake 2. Or, maybe they will just do more acquisitions of games to self-publish, like they did with Rocket League and Fall Guys.
Gee maybe you should sue epic and make them carry other stores apps and not lock in their payment system and allow downloading steam from their store for giga karma.
An exclusive on Epic Games may as well just not even exist, as far as I'm concerned. Didn't play Anno 1800 until it was finally released on Steam. Nice discount too.
When I see sales of Playstation games on PC the numbers are very underwhelming compared to other big third party titles. In contrast helldivers 2 got insane numbers when it launched simultaneously.
I don't think launch hype sales can be overlooked and how much may potentially be lost. If people are willing to wait then by the time game is available hype is less and it's more likely for people to move on or wait for even steeper sales.
You need a better definition of „they“. Because I don’t buy from Epic for one particular reason, so they (Epic) don’t get my money. If the game is good and I want to play it I will do so later and at that point the developer still deserves my money.
Yep. I loved Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, and was excielted to hear they made a sequel. Then I learned it's an EGS exclusive. They can go get bent, not buying from them anymore
Yeah, but frankly the high seas usually provide less than Steam does even with money in the equation. And that's probably the only case when high seas is worse, with all the other services in my experience the high seas provide better service(spotify was close). So the point is if a game doesn't release on Steam it's release date just moves to the moment it releases on Steam. Not the best scenario, but Steam really has little competition and Epic surely isn't trying to be one.
Pretty much everything really. It’s basically a store and that’s it, no cool features that Steam has. They may have achievements now but not positive. Think it took two years just for them to add a shopping cart. They dump money on developers to release exclusively on Epic instead of spending it making a good experience for customers. No reviews, no forums, no workshop etc.
I grab the free games they offer every couple weeks and use Heroic to play them, not touching their launcher.
Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying "we'd love to host your game" for an exclusivity deal.
Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
Epic replies that they aren't interested if it's not exclusive.
This tells me that
Epic is full of shit. "We'd love to have your game, but only if it's exclusive.
Epic doesn't care about being a better service for its customers. Having the game available on Epic as well is strictly better for Epic's customers and they easily could have done that. They chose not to.
Epic is not interested in actually having to compete with other companies. This would require them to provide a better service in some fashion. They are only interested if they can force people "if you want to purchase this game you have to buy it through us" which is anti-consumer.
Epic pays for exclusivity sometimes. It’s funny, I keep picking up the free epic games but I don’t think I have ever once played a single game on there.
I just use the heroic/legendary alternative launcher for any single player games I actually want to play from egs. It’s open source and gives epic less footprint on my machine.
Unfortunately if you want to do anything multiplayer then you need the real client.
I've been picking them up religiously after I found out I missed Frostpunk. The only ones I've played were the big names like Control, Death Standing, and the old Fallout games. For everything else, the client doesn't give you enough information to decide if it's worth your time or not. I keep having to go back and forth between Epic and Steam to read reviews and the "similar to other games you've played" thing. It's not worth the effort.
I say this every time Epic comes up but it remains the same.
Steam is the pro-consumer storefront. Epic is the pro-developer storefront. What Epic seems to fail to understand is that by being so staunchly pro-developer, they effectively become anti-consumer. And as a consumer, I'm just not going to spend money on an anti-consumer marketplace.
When Epic considers adding necessary pro-consumer measures like actual user reviews so I can hear how a game actual performs from real end users, then and only then will I consider Epic a real storefront viable for consumers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Epic's main selling point was it's lower storefront fee (15% vs 30%, if I recall). It didn't offer any other benefits for consumers and I think Epic realised rather quickly that the people who are actually supposed to be paying money for all of this are the buyers and not the sellers, and thus they've resorted to strategies like making games "exclusive" or trying to bribe players with free games.
I agree they don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-developer, but my point is that that is how they are approaching being pro-developer - by limiting pro-consumer features at the behest of developers. Or perhaps I should be saying more actively publishers, to be fair.
I understand that they are pro-developers, like, they only tale 15% of the sales etc. But why are they anti-consumers?
I use Heroic Games Launcher on Nobara Linux and my experience is more seamless than buying and installing games from Steam. I don't have to bother with Epic Games Launcher, I just download a game and run via proton or wine.
The fact that you can't use the Epic games launcher on Linux should be telling you what you need to know.
How is their 12 foot interface these days?
How is their position on running things via wine? Tim the bellend has generally been telling Linux users to use wine, but at the same time been generally hostile to it.
I gave what I see as a significant example in my original comment. Not being able to see comments or reviews from those who have purchased games through the storefront is a problem for me. If a game has a bug or problem, especially if it is one that could potentially be tied to or unique to the EGS version, I would like to know about it. That EGS currently doesn't provide readily available user feedback when it frankly has been the standard as defined by steam, just doesn't for me.
So you have to ask yourself why they wouldn't include such a simple a rudimentary feature - the only result I can come up with is to appease developers who want to prevent being negatively impacted by bad reviews. Thus what we have is prioritizing the wants of developers at the expense of features which benefit consumers.
I'm annoyed when a game isn't on GOG. Epic's issue is that I use it the least and so I'm less likely to boot up a game on it unless I'm actively seeking it out.
One of the annoying thing about epic exclusives is that the focus is on steam, but GOG is affected too and loses out on games too until the deal expires.
GOG is called Good Old Games for a reason. They aren’t losing out by having to wait. I always buy games there first, then Epic (if it’s an exclusive), then Steam.
Nothing beats GOG for preservation and gamers rights to actually own their games.
Well, yeah, but if I was going to get pissed about that, then Epic would be way low in my list of priorities. It's Steam sucking up all the oxygen in that particular room. I own every Yakuza game they made available on GOG and they've stopped doing that. That wasn't Epic.
The fact that gog.com let me forego launchers all together as well as letting me download the game installers and put them on my NAS means a lot to me. I don't remember the last time I had GOG Galaxy installed, I just download, install and play the games and then call it a day.
You can go that way. I'd rather have a front-end to manage it, but having the option means you can do it manually, rely on Galaxy or use a third party front-end pretty interchangeably.
Yeah, there are a bunch of third party launchers with integrations. Launchbox will do most PC storefronts.
I wish Galaxy was a bit lighter, though, because once I plug in everything it supports we start getting into five digit counts and the whole thing slows to a crawl. It's a bit better now, but it was borderline unusable at some points.
Know what happens when I find out a game is Epic exclusive? I don't buy it for a year... Sometimes ever. Enjoy the Epic money kings, hope it's worth it.
There are so many games that I don't even care about all the games available on Steam (that I'd be willing to play). We have so many games coming out that I'd have to play game for a living to play all the games I want to play, and even then I'm not 100% sure I'd be able to play everything I'd be open to play. I have multiple games that I've purchased and installed thinking "I'll get to them soon enough" and they're just taking drive space. I also have multiple games on my wishlist that are "waiting for a discount" but I'm probably never going to pick them up because actually they're waiting for my backlog to clear and it will never clear.
Does it suck that Alan Wake is Epic exclusive. Sure. Does it really matter to me? Not really because I'm oversaturated with games I want to play. Missing one great game doesn't matter when I already have a backlog of great games I won't purchase because I have a backlog of great games I've purchased that I won't play because I have a backlog of great games I really want to play.
I think I got the latest tomb raider trilogy and death stranding, uh, last year or the year before? All free. My perception of time is getting fucky again tho so take that into account.
gog doesn't have regional pricing and their launcher at this point is worse than epic's. as an old fuck I like having old games back but it's not convenient at all.
Galaxy definitely sucks, but to say it's worse than EGS seems pretty far out there. EGS has been caught snooping around files and taking system logs without notice on top of just being overly resource intensive, totally bare bones and easily broken.
The way Coffee Stain explained it for satisfactory is that the exclusivity windfall gave them enough runway to finish the game.
If the system of temporary exclusivity in exchange for upfront development cash continues I think it's an overall win for the gaming community as games get to come out at less rushed pace and with potentially less cash generation grabs in the game itself.
That's great that devs can benefit from it, I will not purchase the game until it's available on other platforms due to Epic's general shitty behavior.
Nothing has gone wrong, and it’s been going on for years at this point. But yeah, maybe you’re right. Maybe aliens will invade us because people use Epic. Maybe the sun will go supernova because the Epic store doesn’t have reviews.
Long story short, there were two main issues that people had with Epic:
they made exclusivity a thing inside pc platform (this was the main issue for most people)
Tim Sweeney is generally disliked
The first issue speaks for itself. The second needs a bit more context.
Tim Sweeney has an history of being arbitrary. One year he says one thing, the next another. Relevant to this case, Tim was openly against PC gaming back in the day, while Valve was pushing for PC gaming. We’re talking around 2010, where console gaming was predominant, most publisher favored consoles against PC. Valve at the time was one of the few companies betting on the PC platform.
Now, he’s suddenly pro PC gaming. People see this as him doing a 180, and trying to take the spoils from Valve’s work.
Then there were also some comments that he made that aged like milk, but generally speaking this is why people take an issue with Epic but not Steam
I mostly take issue with the paid exclusivity deals from Epic. That kind of thing can stay on consoles. I also don’t trust Tim Sweeney or Tencent, and I feel that they’re kind of openly hostile to consumers.
I don’t care for intrusive DRM, but it’s clearly marked which games have it on Steam and which don’t. I won’t buy anything that requires a second account or has Denuvo. I don’t do online matchmaking games anymore, but if I did, I’d also avoid anything with kernel-level anti-cheat. I don’t really mind Steamworks DRM, though. It’s not intrusive and Steam is useful enough that I normally have it running in the background anyway.
I also like buying on Steam because they’re contributing so much to Linux gaming and FOSS, even if Steam itself isn’t FOSS. It’s because of them that I can have a Windows-free household without any significant compromises.
Epic Game store, good: free games, bad: Epic and Tim Sweeney.
There are business decisions with all of them that I dislike.
For the top dog PC game store, Valve could behave much much worse. Epic is still in the customer and game developer acquisition phase (and still behave like a d*ck with their exclusive deals), if the ever manage to push Valve aside, I believe they will be much worse.
Depends on the game developers, if they offer/upload a Linux/Mac version. On Linux, you have to either install/update your games manually, or use a third-party client. Idk about Mac. Third party clients can also integrate Wine for Windows games.
Lutris is a game launcher for Linux that can install games from your GOG, Epic, and Steam accounts. I believe it even supports Proton which is a compatibility layer to run Windows games on Linux (which is a Valve project that is based on Wine).
If a game works on Windows, there's a 95% chance it works as good or better on Linux. The same can be said for MacOS apps, and Android apps, as there are packages to run those on Linux as well.
Otherwise why would anyone use software they aren't used to? Steam is really good, they've been putting massive resources into making it better for many years, and it has all the network effects.
GoG has been a competitor for as long as I can remember. It's not exactly a fair comparison because they mostly carry older games. But you can buy a ton of games off GoG. Itch.io exists, however it's a bit niche. Origin, humble bundle, Microsoft store. You can use all of these and get the majority of the games steam offers. Why don't people? Because steam is just better. Steam has competition. It has a ton. People don't feel that way cause EVERYONE who games on PC buys from steam. But it's not because steam has a monopoly, it's because steam offers more than their competitors, and does it better.
I don't like monopolies. I agree with you. However, a monopoly existing because they are snuffing out the competition and forcing it to be the only option for consumers is different than a monopoly that exists because consumers choose it over and over again because of their pro consumer policies.
Now because this makes it seem like I'm saying "steam is the best", there's a good bit of stuff steam has done that I don't like. But they understand what the gaming scene is and not just see the consumers as cash cows.
I am skeptical that this is the main reason (even though it's true and is a reason). I think people don't like the idea of having their games library split across multiple services, and don't like using/learning software they aren't familiar with, or that other people aren't using.
funny you never hear about games being ONLY on steam. it has nice features but riding so hard for a gigantic monopoly is going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires. nothing lasts forever, and we don't know who or what will replace the current structure at valve.
not to mention valve has had its share of anti consumer and predatory practices. most of the concessions have been in response to legal threats.
going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires.
Blizzard was a good company when they released StarCraft, so I purchased StarCraft. Blizzard is a shit company now so I do not purchase or play their games now.
If Steam becomes a shit company in the future I'll stop using it. I don't understand the argument of "you should purchase for a shitty company now instead of a good one, because if you purchase from the good one it might one day become a shitty one.
But steam isn't trying to be monopoly. They don't pay developers to only sell on their platform. Games that are only on steam are only on steam because steam is the only place that developer wants to sell the game.
yeah but the thing is, Steam isn't even trying to be a monopoly, all of Steam's competitors just seem to have a hobby of shooting their own foot, repeatedly. Steam is trying to make the gaming experience easier and more fun, and excelling at it!
unlike some other platforms, Steam doesn't do exclusive deals, literally the only Steam exclusives are Valve's own games, everything else is up to be decided by devs
For what reason?
Why is Epic so bad? I'm not fishing for a reaction. I genuinely don't know why most people here hate Epic
Edit: ok, so what I gather from the comments is that Epic has a slightly worse service and that you guys are way too invested in a stupid dispute between two companies that only care about your money. Cool 👍
I got exactly one free epic game (subnautica) that I uninstalled and bought immediately the day I couldn't play the game because I lost Internet and there was no goddamned offline mode.
Epic store is shovelware, and I can't believe the amount of people who defend a 4th rate store comparing itself to the gold standard that can't even offer basic functionality expected of a modern platform.
Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying "we'd love to host your game" for an exclusivity deal.
Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
Epic replies that they aren't interested if it's not exclusive.
This tells me that
Epic is full of shit. "We'd love to have your game, but only if it's exclusive.
Epic doesn't care about being a better service for its customers. Having the game available on Epic as well is strictly better for Epic's customers and they easily could have done that. They chose not to.
Epic is not interested in actually having to compete with other companies. This would require them to provide a better service in some fashion. They are only interested if they can force people "if you want to purchase this game you have to buy it through us" which is anti-consumer.
The Epic Games Store is a user data collection platform first, and a pretty bad game store/client second. It's slow, buggy, difficult to navigate (though that's somewhat subjective), and sometimes doesn't work without an Internet connection, even for games you already have downloaded locally and installed.
Disclaimer: I understand that any games store, including Steam, collects user data. But at least those other stores provide working, user friendly features in exchange for the data collection they do.
If you go to the official website for the game Infinity Nikki, where the pic is taken, and look to the left of what the OP cropped, there is a standalone Windows download. You can just download the game.
The game is F2P so while it's not some big accomplishment to pirate like you're implying, it is almost certainly loaded with predatory monetization.
Yeah I don't really buy pc games before they fall below a certain price point, anyway. So I don't really care about these limited exclusive periods.
I wonder how much these deals are paying off for epic. Outside of exclusives and the weekly free games I've basically never even thought of buying a game on EGS. Definitely the worst launcher experience. Easily ignorable.
Not even just ignorable. I literally don't even hear about them until they release on steam and people talk smack in steam reviews. It might as well not exist unless it's on Steam or GOG.
Apparently Alan Wake 2 came out on PC awhile ago, and I literally had no idea until someone bitched about it on Lemmy, lol.
I don't buy hardware until it drops below a certain price point, so when I finally have a PC capable enough, the game price is coincidentally also lower.
I just recognized the username; it's the same dude who keeps trying to complain about monetization and wow and all that regularly lol. Seems like he deleted his last post on it? But it's still in his comment history.
I mean, they have Source 2, but to call it a rival before it's even made it to third-party developers (Facepunch is effectively second party) is a bit of a stretch.
I don't like it when something is only available on Epic either. I also don't like it when someone is only available on Steam - which happens far more often.
But why should this matter to a consumer? If you don't like Steam or Valve's business practices, it's much more difficult to avoid Steam because of its exclusives.
There's a class action lawsuit against Valve now, over Steam's practices similar to price fixing. Part of the reason Epic has to pay for exclusives is that Steam prohibits publishers from offering lower prices on lower cut stores like Epic. If publishers could pass on part of the savings to consumers from the smaller cut, Epic could be more successful without exclusive contracts. Anyway, hopefully what comes out of the suit will be better for consumers in the end.
Great, the devs of good games deserve that money. The way you’re putting it, makes it seem morally just to buy Epic exclusives whenever possible. Thank you!
I have a friend that uses epic games. I met him on steam. I've never played an epic game even though he keeps telling me about free games or whatever on epic games.
Most of the free games are crap but they have on occasion given away absolute bangers (double- or even triple-A titles, although of course usually older titles or ones that didn't sell well). I recently got The Outer Worlds: Spacer's Choice for free (a game I wouldn't otherwise have bought or even known about), and I ended up having a very solid ~55 hours of fun with it. I still do all my buying either on Steam or GOG because I don't trust Epic and I hate their godforsaken launcher so I refuse to pay for anything that'll be tethered to it, but getting a free game of that caliber certainly made up for the pain of installing it.
I got exactly one free epic game (subnautica) that I uninstalled and bought immediately the day I couldn't play the game because I lost Internet and there was no goddamned offline mode.
Epic store is shovelware, and I can't believe the amount of people who defend a 4th rate store comparing itself to the gold standard that can't even offer basic functionality expected of a modern platform. But people always have liked trash, so meh.
Nah, pretty sure this isn't about the data. They just want to encourage people to go through the effort of setting up an account and downloading their launcher in the hopes that they can then later entice you to buy something else while you're there. Every time you run one of those free games they get to show you another offer, and since you're already signed up, the hurdle to buying something is far lower than it otherwise would have been.
Yeah it's not like valve or any of the other companies that sell games on steam too. They'll all have your data and some what people think are so dastardly, (when in reality it's just grown-ups playing with numbers).
Think of it as a "this game is not yet available for purchase" seal. It may also mean "we know our game is not up to standards (it wouldn't sell well on Steam), so we chose to let idiots at epic decide if they want to pay for it, and hey it worked so that's something".
Basically watch games being promoted on steam pre-release and when games get popular, reach out to them and offer them money to be exclusive on EGS for a period of time despite all the publicity the game got being on Steam.
Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying "we'd love to host your game" for an exclusivity deal.
Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
Epic replies that they aren't interested if it's not exclusive.
This tells me that
Epic is full of shit. "We'd love to have your game, but only if it's exclusive.
Epic doesn't care about being a better service for its customers. Having the game available on Epic as well is strictly better for Epic's customers and they easily could have done that. They chose not to.
Epic is not interested in actually having to compete with other companies. This would require them to provide a better service in some fashion. They are only interested if they can force people "if you want to purchase this game you have to buy it through us" which is anti-consumer.
Downloading the games does not cost Epic anything. They paid a flat rate to make it free to download, regardless of how many people actually download it.
You signing into the store and claiming the free games provides user metrics that Epic can use to entice investors.
they pay devs (mostly indie) millions to make their games exclusive to epic for up to over a year. i'd rather not support a company that pays to limit your choice as a consumer
I prefer steam, I'd like to be able to choose what platform I buy a game on. Outside of just not wanting a 5th launcher because I hate having a billion launchers, Steam has many features the EGS doesn't have. Free cloud save backups and screenshot backups, steam workshop for mods, remote play together, game streaming, etc. I also really like steam having player reviews too.
Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying "we'd love to host your game" for an exclusivity deal.
Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
Epic replies that they aren't interested if it's not exclusive.
This tells me that
Epic is full of shit. "We'd love to have your game, but only if it's exclusive.
Epic doesn't care about being a better service for its customers. Having the game available on Epic as well is strictly better for Epic's customers and they easily could have done that. They chose not to.
Epic is not interested in actually having to compete with other companies. This would require them to provide a better service in some fashion. They are only interested if they can force people "if you want to purchase this game you have to buy it through us" which is anti-consumer.
Well mine is pretty petty. Every time I start up my system I'm spammed by epic advertisements in the lower right. It's just so obnoxious, particularly since I'm on my couch and using my controller, so I have to pick up keyboard to dismiss those.
I'm so lazy I haven't bothered to investigate options to be fair, but broadly speaking I don't like how much it screams "look at me, look at me!" when I had no intention of interacting with their store/launcher at all that time.
I specifically don't get upset when a game is exclusively on Steam because of how much work Valve puts into Linux gaming, work that Epic directly and actively opposes.
Two games I anticipated came out on Steam only, so I asked the developers if they planned to sell on alternative platforms and they did, but considering the game isn't full done yet (they released it in Early Access) Initially I was annoyed, but after their response (they want to focus their effort on the game before adding the extra burden of managing multiple update channels) I understand why they did, on top of being a small team.
I decided to wait for one (came out on GOG on v1.0) and for the second one I decided to buy it on Steam right away since there's still a lot of work left.
Isn’t this whole post just a part of a long running gag where people give shit to Epic for their exclusivity deals after they gave Apple so much shit for their walled garden in much the same way?
Oh no, we don't complain about Steam exclusivity, monopolies are ok as long as they're the monopolies that we want, ok? What happens when Valve turns to shit and we made sure there's no viable alternative? That will never happen! Are you kidding?
Everything goes to shit eventually, but pre-emptively making yourself suffer is just silly. Enjoy the time you have, and vote with your wallet once they start doing anticompetitive crap like paid exclusivity deals. Until then, we might as well enjoy the fact that Valve isn't a public company obligated to chase short term profits for shareholders.
Yeah, and it’s a nightmare to use with Steam link. The last epic exclusive I bought was The Expanse, but adding it as a non-Steam game to play with the link app completely screwed up the license check and locked you out of everything but the first episode.
Its because the other exclusives are the devs/publishers launcher.
While epic was actively seeking those 1year exclusivity deals to get more users on the platform.
So it would be better if it was a permanent exclusivity deal, like traditional publishers have?
They've been paying out in advance in some cases (Epic Mega Grants, I think) so the devs can finish the game. That's basically the definition of what publishers do, but when Epic do it it's somehow "not publishing"?
don't hide the full story, they pay devs millions to keep their games exclusive to epic for a year. that is an extremely scummy business practice that you are rewarding and encouraging if you buy from this shitfest of a platform
When Half Life 2 launched, you had to register your game with Steam before you could play it. You had to give up your physical ownership of the product, and lock it to yourself. You couldn't sell it to anyone else, or even let them play it.
That's what you were encouraging by buying from that shitfest of a platform.
I really don't see how bunging devs money for publishing rights is worse. The devs clearly don't see it that way.
I mean I see this as a good thing. I have to keep a separate launcher around but... at least that dev is getting a great deal and will probably be able to support that game for a while (or start their next one)
They’re paying indie devs millions to remain exclusive for a year. What’s scummy is the Steam fanboys who see that and think it’s better for gamers if those games just aren’t financially successful.
-Valve didn't kill ownership it was already dead. DLC has been pulled, and games delisted, as well as games made unplayable by server shutdowns. They just happened to be the platform who told you to your face what you were getting into while everyone else lied and said the game was yours until it wasn't. They also say they'll provide downloads for a time if they ever shut down, but if you want that long term guarantee you're probably better off looking at GOG and some kind of data storage for the installers.
-Origin is shit and I hate EA/Origin exclusives too, but it's basically a launcher for their own games which I understand, but still prefer steam to be included too, so much of the time I avoid EA games (i avoid them for a lot of reasons tbh)
-Battle.net started as a unified launcher for blizzard games, which sort of made sense as they never worked with or were involved with steam, and many of their games were disc based or had its own installer. Subscriptions specifically I don't think existed with steam for a while so that was sort of a complicating factor. Still wish their games were on steam, but it sort of made sense at its inception.
-I don't even use the microsoft store unless forced to, I find it annoying and bleh. They're forcing more games to it and it's shitty too.
-Epic is annoying, but it's a special kind of annoying because for many games early on, they would announce steam as a supported platform, some even sold the game on steam, until they changed to Epic exclusives. I think Fall Guys was one example. The bait and switch really lost them trust with a lot of gamers and you'll find the attitude towards them can be pretty bad because of that history.
Add in that many of the games aren't published by them, they just threw money at the publisher or devs to make their games epic exclusive. This can be good for developers, like an upfront investment, but sucks for gamers who like to keep things somewhat unified in terms of a game library. Especially when you already have to deal with 5 other launchers, another arbitrary one is pretty annoying.
If you're wondering why people want their games on steam, look at the features. Free cloud save backups, a decent amount of free screenshot backups, in game recording is new and pretty neat, achievements, community marketplaces, frequent sales, family sharing, steam workshop for easy integrated modding, discussions and guides for all your games, early access games, built in friends, text chat, voice chat, remote play together, game streaming, etc.
TLDR: It isn't an "oh epic stinky just because" situation. The Epic game store simply doesn't have feature parity, bait and switched gamers multiple times with exclusives after games were advertised as being on steam, and basically survived on throwing money at devs to put their games exclusively on EGS, at the expense of the people who want to play those games on their chosen platform. Doesn't shock me that they don't have a lot of positive PR in the community.
kills? most of them work with a steam emu, even offline. that's not even cracking. most of those that don't have a different limitation.
with a steam emu you can do whatever you want with the game files, often you can put it on your pendrive and play it as a portable game (the right goldberg emu settings allow game data to be stored near the game files instead of appdata)
I'm OK if you own the game you are making exclusive to your platform. Bribing devs is shitty practice. They also sit and wait for a game's early access to gain momentum on Steam first before offering them money to leave.
I just never buy those games. Epic released with exclusives but couldn't process payments in a number of country leaving gamers there SOL. That and some of the higher-ups there just left a really bad taste in my mouth. Anything that also releases as a timed exclusive there doesn't get a purchase from me until years later when it's more than half off (and I think I've only bought one game like that). A Steam monopoly is bad, but Epic are not the solution to that.
Man, i kinda hate the epic games launcher, it is really crap; but for me games being on epic is not problem, i just use heroic instead, it's MUCH faster than epic's slop; what i don't like is games that for some reason just refuse to work on heroic despite EOS being installed
For there to be competition, there have to be some features. Epic just uses exclusivity deals as an alternative to features.
I am not sure what that is, but there is no competition.
I get it being annoying... But why is it such a deal breaker? If the game is good, why not just install it, play the game, leave it when you're done?
The other storefronts have some cool features (namely gamepass for xbox and all of steamworks and the app stuff for steam), but it doesn't really matter if the game doesn't use em.
Speaking for myself, if it's Epic only, it means I have no assurances as a customer that they're going to keep letting me play the game on Linux. If I bought Alan Wake II, I'm doing so knowing that they don't support my operating system and could break compatibility with Wine with any random update. If that happens on Steam, I can reasonably expect a refund if it was previously Verified, and because of the verification system, they also have an incentive not to break compatibility. So if I play Alan Wake II some day, it'll be because it was a free giveaway on Epic, because I'm not paying for that.
There are a whole bunch of games that actively removed compatibility with SteamOS, and Linux by extension. Apex Legends was the most recent and the most vocal about it.
I just save my money and play something else or buy something else. There's more games than can be played that I've never felt like I was losing out by not buying a game from epic.
I tried GTA5 when I made an account there. The game was given free. Didn't play for long though, and I dislike the idea of having more than Steam. (I have GOG for Sims but I don't use that either)
I tried Rocket League at work. It is fun and I'd like to continue at home...but opening up that Epic Store kinda is a turn-off for the deal.
Steam does provide good general dev services
GOG preserves games and let's you own game files without pesky DRM
What does Epic do besides developing UE5 and harrassing the PC platform with exclusivity deals?
Other dev-specific platforms like EA amd Uplay get a pass because they publish only their own games.
This is it right here. Do not fanboy platform. Competition is very very important in this kind of market. But epic games is just the worst of all worlds.
Release on GOG, I'll buy it. If not, release on steam. Otherwise 🏴☠️
It’s not harassing me. I’ve bought Epic exclusives, and I’ll continue to do so if it’s a game I want to play. I always buy GOG first, Epic second (for exclusives), and Steam last, for anything else. This isn’t a problem for me.
I'm sorry but Epic is owned by Tencent. This means at any point in time, China's Government can enforce trojans to be installed into your PC. Maybe not as relevant for you if you are not in a position of interest.
I wonder how much Epic games makes at the end of the day. most companies that do stuff like this operate at a huge loss, functioning only through investment capital until they starve out their competition and become the head of a monopoly at which point their investors become even more pointlessly wealthy. However I believe this works so often because those competitors are also operating off of investor capital and eventually their investors decide to sell out and switch teams to get some of their investment back. How does this work with Valve? Unlike companies previously discussed Valve is a privately held company and has control over their own company, as evidenced by the fact that they seem to make discissions in favor of long term goals instead of short term profits, a concept that has grown foreign to the US market. On top of the fact they are currently the leader in online game sales, I'm unsure how epic can justify, what i would assume, is a huge sum of money constantly paying for exclusives. Maybe im wrong and the pie is so large Epic is currently operating financially soundly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless we should all be happy that this market is not a clear cut monopoly, competition is a consumer win.
I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, but aren't there some games that should have thrived but we're heals back by launching as Epic exclusives?
I have a backlog of great games to play so long that I'm seeing remasters of some games on the list come out before I've played them a first time. I have no problem waiting for games to come to a different platform and go on sale.
The other day I wanted to download it (wink wink) but from the site I checked (popular and recommended, not a shitty one) it required you to login to epic and some other shit. Gave up 3 seconds later, not worth the trouble
Yeah, the repack of that store requires some calls home and fake accounts.
I've honestly seen all I really need two of the game by watching a couple of people play it on YouTube. It's pretty, it's neat. If it would have came out on steam back in the day I would have bought it without a question.
As much as I like using Steam, I'm on Epic's side here. They sue over anti-competitive practices of other marketplaces that take almost triple the cut that Epic does on game sales.
If I were a developer and one platform took 12% while the other took 30%, I'd push my customers to the 12% option no matter how much better the in-game overlay or whatever was on the other platform. Game studios are closing left and right, and that extra 18% is a big deal when games are struggling to actually profit from the development.
I don't understand why people are so in love with a Steam monopoly. Steam has a lot of neat features, but the main feature I'm looking for in a game is the game itself, and I'd prefer more of the money to go to the companies making the games.
And maybe if Valve didn't take home a larger profit from game sales than the developers themselves, they'd go back to being a full-time game studio to make their money.
I might have been on epic's side if they had delivered a storefront/launcher at least as good as Steam, then found they still weren't able to compete and only then decided to try the exclusivity crap.
They did not. They have a launcher/store that is far worse than Steam or even GOG (which is an accomplishment; GOG's isn't all that good and yet they manage to be worse by a large margin), and they didn't even attempt to provide a better product/service. Instead they just started throwing money in order to secure exclusivity.
It shows all they want is to muscle into the market, not provide anything better for people.
I know playstation has been pushing more to PC but like isn't a game only for epic pretty much the same as a Playstation exclusive? Sure it's annoying but brands have always had exclusives
One reason is Valve has put a fuckton of effort into linux support. So for linux users, buying a game on Steam means it's probably going to work right out of the box. Buying from Epic, it's a crapshoot.
For example, I spent hours trying to get Red Dead Redemption 2 that I had bought from Epic to work. Never did, something with rockstar launcher compatibility. Gave up and bought it again on Steam, worked the first time I hit play.
I agree with the sentiment that people should shut up already about the launcher thing. I know it's aggravating, but, there's options.
However when it comes between Steam vs Epic as storefronts, you'd be hard-pressed to try and find anything to like about what Epic has done with their launcher vs the years of hard work and labor for Valve to get Steam to where it is today. Epic's launcher is like where Steam's was - 17 years ago. It's noticeable, you can't hide it.
Hell, Epic takes less of a share of the sale. It is better for devs.
88% of 1.000 vs 70 of 1.000.000? Which one is better?
People don't like what they did with exclusives. I'm kinda okay-ish if you keep the game you founded locked on your store for a year or 2 but not all the games you get by paying devs to release it exclusive to some shitty launcher
And though I already said why I avoid it. It doesn’t adhere to Unix philosophy. Does it want to he a store? launcher? download manager? Mod repo? Community site? Chat program?
It should pick one and let someone else do another
Epic games launcher is no where best as bad as anyone says. The storefront is also one of most responsive ones, especially compared to the likes of GOG.
For me, I just buy a game wherever it's cheapest. Like I got satisfactory on epic because I could get it like £15 cheaper than steam.
Like I don't understand why people are so irked by a steam alternative. It's not like it requires new hardware to play it's exclusives like with consoles. Aren't we all supposed to be against monopolies, steam needs competition, look at how shit its sales have been for like 10 years now compared to what they were like prior.
Wait until you read all the problems people have with EGS!
I've read people complaining they lost their account and support couldn't do shit because "of security reasons" while steam needs a few stuff and you get it back. I've helped someone getting his steam account back after someone stole his account changing mail + password in like ~12 hours (?)/1 day
Was very simple:
Yo steam I lost my account here a bunch of pics proving my email was the owner of said game: There you can see my old steam user, email address and purchase
Let me check Yep, you're right. Changed back your email and your password has been reset. Log back in and change it
I've experienced losing my old email address, and all traces of my old digital identity. They went above and beyond to work with me till I could prove to their satisfaction that I was the original owner of the account, then restored it to me. Steam support is generally amazing.
Epic games launcher is no where best as bad as anyone says.
Is it better now? Last I used it, earlier this year, it still took me half a year for any UI change to happen when I did anything.
To be clear, I hated Steam for ages too. Only maybe 6 years ago I started actually buying games there. Before then I'd just pirate everything. The Steam application often had issues and I had no money before then anyway. But nowadays I find Steam more convenient than piracy. I do not find EGS more convenient than piracy. I do wish Steam had more meaningful competition.
Aren't we all supposed to be against monopolies, steam needs competition
Steam is not a monopoly. The vast majority of PC gaming revenue is made outside Steam. Fortnite: EGS only, not on Steam. Minecraft: own web storefront and Microsoft Store, not on Steam. Roblox: I think it has its own storefront, it's not on Steam.
Steam has an estimated revenue of 8.6bn out of PC gaming's overall 45bn. It's very far from even approaching 50%, let alone surpass it.
I don't mind other storefronts. What I mind is people spreading the false narrative as if one of the most widely installed storefronts (EGS because of Fortnite) is somehow the little underdog.
I'm gonna have to agree. It used to be about the most slow and bloated thing in existence, but they actually fixed a lot of performance issues last time I checked. It's still slow, but in the same time period Steam on Windows decided to add a pointless splash screen increasing the load time by 4x, letting Epic take the W by a wide margin in load times, while responsiveness is a draw.
Yes, I know that Steam is more feature complete and consumer friendly which is why I still prefer to buy from Steam when possible.
Both are horrible mess, I don't really understand this deepthroating of steam their ui is horrible, they do behave like a monopoly, games by them have drm by default. Same can be said about epic.
No, Steam games do not have DRM by default. By default Steam is a mere download manager. For Steam DRM to be applied, the publisher has to run the drm_wrap command: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm
Ok, sorry I was wrong.
So I can filter out drmed games on steam, right?
Steamcmd looks unrelated, why would I need to use it? Also the wiki page only confirms my earlier thought about steam ui being horrible, whole article is avout how to install it and what kinds of problems exist, not telling how to do some basic things with it.
As evidenced by this post, they are not a monopoly. So what does this statement actually mean?
This post gives evidence of the contrary, game that dared not to be published on platform that has 70-80% of pc market share ( https://www.geekwire.com/2024/gaming-giant-valve-hit-with-another-antitrust-lawsuit-alleging-anticompetitive-practices/ )
shouldn't even exist and even stating otherwise is a blasphemy, lol.
As for more anecdotical examples, games that are published on steam only, are majority most don't even list other platforms on their web sites, in cases when they can be bought elsewhere. Even more, updates and patches often do not reach other marketplaces.
So yeah steam is a shitty marketplace with horrible ui and captured fanatical clients.
Steam has made great strides in helping to make the gaming scene more consumer friendly. They constantly have sales, make refunds extremely easy (and in some cases have forced refunds), and are even now setting guidelines to battle passes and how you can't just advertise it as a battle pass and instead have to list whats in it. Epic hates consumers and their main business strategy is to force business by paying publishers to only release on their store.
It doesn't matter how good the game is, I'm not purchasing from a store that doesn't have the customer in mind.
Nothing of this that you've described is related to the one specific game. I don't really like Epic Store because it has a shitty UI, but I like Alan Wake 2 enough to want to buy it on release. I don't want a personal crusade to stand in a way of me enjoying a great game. I don't give a shit, honestly, I will get my favorite games wherever they are available as long as it's on PC.