What brings you to the epic game store? and if you haven't, what will?

[zassou]

i, for example: no matter what amazing new game launches on epic, or even how frequent the free giveaways are, i will never get into that epic water. i used to think it's a belief thing, like some religious people wont eat certain food.

 

however, recently something did shed some of my stubborness away: farming simulator 19, this is a game on my steam wishlist, it's a game i could throw many hours into, and it's currently out of my reach due to the prices

 

it drew me to the point i browse the game's page on epic game store(and still amazed by how barren it looks), hovered my mouse on purchase button for a while.

so seeing epic giving this game for free is a huge lure for me, at the end tho, i didn't bite.

 

i dont like tim sweeney, always picture how a saint he is, but do all kinds of scummy business practice in behind.

and still to this day, they do not provide regional pricing and with way less payment option.

these are some of the reasons why i dont like this company.

 

========

 

What makes you landed on epic? (other than fortnite)

If you are an epic user, do you think ultimately only the selection of games matters, the rest is not?

 

If you like me, who still don't like the platform and not willing to try it. what will?

 

Do you think free giveaway is a good tactic to draw new customer to their platform? (overall growth, PR, sustainability)

 

[Axeonelite]

It used to be Paragon. RIP

 

**EDIT because Content**

 

I do have the launcher for Unreal Engine. I like to mess around in there every now and again. Other than that it does not do it for me. I like being centralized and Steam does it for me. It's just what people are used to. Steam is the freaking Kleenex of Tissues, and Band-Aid of Bandages. Even for casuals Steam will always stand out as what people know if you describe an E-Store to them. 

 

Steam has one thing the other compitition don't have. Time. You can't buy time. Time gets you a player base and feedback/support for the platform. I'm not saying Epic Store, U-Play, or the likes won't be big. But a Publisher selling there games only won't do well as quickly. Why do you think big game stores did big early in the 2000's? Like Gamestop, Play-n-Trade, and even Toy's-R-Us for context sake. Variety. 

[Sir0Tek]

No Linux - no Epic.  But even if they'd do open up now I probably wouldn't install the Epic launcher (or is it the epic sniffer?).

 

[Arrogath]

honestly, I haven't spent any money on epic's platform. I think fortnite is dumb, but I can see the mass market appeal. If epic would cut out the anti-competitive practices and compete on the merit of their store instead of emulating the console wars of the last decade I could be convinced to give them a chance. I don't see that happening.

[dizmo]

Nothing.

[Pickles von Brine]

I am boycotting the epic store due to their business practices. I really don't like having games locked to a platform that is then released on another later. Plus their launcher is rather immature and missing a huge number of features. 

[Bumbummen]

I had the epic launcher before Fortnite and before it was cool. I use it for Unreal Engine 4 & Squad SDK.

 

I am not a hater but i have/keep my libary on Steam mainly because i have been there for 10+ years, there is history to the friends list, groups, old posts etc. That is something that is missing for me personally on Epic and i will not be able to convince every friend to use it. I like the epic launcher but it is simply really in it's beginning as a platform and if we are honest it does not have all the features of Steam, espicially for communities.

 

Also i do absolutely not support exclusivity deals. I do not like to get patronized which launcher i have to use for the product i pay for. I work a lot so i do not have much time to play and if there is a year i between release and release i propably have already lost interest if it was not really really good since i already have my unit and our main games and there are also other new games coming out.

[PlayStation 2]

Nothing and... nothing. For what it's worth, everything I give a fuck about playing is on Steam or isn't on any of the digital distribution platforms. 

[JoostinOnline]

I do have EGS installed, and I'll occasionally grab a free game, but I don't expect to ever buy them from there. When I originally built my PC, I didn't want Steam. I wanted to launch everything from the Start Menu. I hated the idea of needing a launcher. I ordered all my games as DVD's. Then I bought Skyrim, and it automatically installed Steam (a dick move IMO), and was required to run it. I eventually got over that, and built up a library on Steam. I still bought physical media when I could though.

 

Years later, I bought Mass Effect Andromeda on Amazon, and it came in the mail in a standard DVD package. I opened it up, excited to have a new Mass Effect game, and inside was a piece of paper telling me how to create an Origin account and use the included download code. If course, that turned out to just be one of the many disappointments that went along with Andromeda.

 

I currently have all the games I want to play launchable from Steam Library (which got a very good UI update a few months ago).

My desire to have everything accessible from one place isn't beyond anything else, but unless Epic releases an exclusive game that I absolutely want, and at a low price (I normally wait a few years to buy stuff), I probably won't buy anything from them.

 

Edit: For example, I want The Outer Worlds, but given how short it's reported to be, and my money constraints, I was going to wait over a year anyway. I might as well get it on Steam.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, zassou said:

If you like me, who still don't like the platform and not willing to try it. what will?

All of the following:

• No client (I don't care of it exists, but should be optional)
• No DRM
• Can backup installation files, then play forever without internet connection, and even if the ES itself shuts down

Basically, they would have to actually sell games. Or, in other words, they'd need to be GOG clones, as opposed to Steam clones.

 

13 hours ago, zassou said:

Do you think free giveaway is a good tactic to draw new customer to their platform? (overall growth, PR, sustainability)

 

Maybe. It would not draw me to their store, but then again I obviously don't use Steam either (see above) while millions of gamers do, so I'm certainly not representative. My prior is that such practices would entice a lot of people.

[Soag]

13 hours ago, Arrogath said:

anti-competitive practices

And what are those, mind telling?

 

13 hours ago, Bumbummen said:

I do not like to get patronized which launcher i have to use for the product i pay for.

Sometimes I can't believe how people can come up with a sentence - hell, a way of thinking - like that. Being a customer on a free market is 'being patronized'? Like really? How come?

Imagine you have some product you want to sell in large copies and your options are:

1) try to sell it on your own (poor choice for someone new/with low bugdet)

2) use a store which gives you a worse offer

3) use a store which gives you a better offer

4) use both: 1st on their initial offer, 2nd on worse than their initial one

 

Then the only valid options are really 3rd and 4th. And to me it's stupid when in this scenario a customer blames shop for wanting to make the best possible deal for themselves as well. You do realize the product creator chooses the way of distribtion, has a free will and operates on a free market? I really hope you do...

 

 

What brought me there? A colleague gave me a key for Fortnite PvP for free to try it out with him. Tried, didn't like it and uninstalled the launcher shortly after. Then there were some FREE, GOOD games I didn't have and wanted to play so I picked them up.

 

To be honest it's very rarely worth buying games on Steam. Same applies to all other platforms, unfortunately. I use what I think is the best tactic - use external sites to buy keys for lowest possible prices. Whatever platform they end up being on is just an end result.

 

And I really hope EPIC and GOG (this one especially) grow enough for Steam to consider them a real threat to their piece on the market share. They would finally step up their game, which hasn't been done in a LONG time.

[RejZoR]

What brought me to EGS? Free games. Nothing else. Their exclusives are stupid and anti-consumer, their client is garbage and I just don't want to deal with yet another game client. If it's for their own games only, then fine. But for everything, no thanks. Reasons why I'm fine with Steam is because apart from Valve's own games, nothing is exclusive and I can opt for it on GOG instead if I want. Most EGS games are not. And getting it 1 year later like Metro Exodus is just pointless. So much later when all the fuss is already gone. Heh. I probably won't even ever buy it at this point and I own both original Metro's on Steam and both Redux on GOG...

[Arrogath]

4 hours ago, Soag said:

18 hours ago, Arrogath said:

anti-competitive practices

And what are those, mind telling?

While I'm not the first to mention them, and I mention them in my original post

18 hours ago, Arrogath said:

emulating the console wars of the last decade

which is to say, buying out "exclusives" for the sake of controlling distribution of software to entice buyers to use the service. If epic was actually funding the development of these games that would be fine, but that isn't what's happening.

Buying exclusive distribution rights days before a product's release date is the epitome of anti-competitive practices.

[Bumbummen]

3 hours ago, Soag said:

And what are those, mind telling?

 

Sometimes I can't believe how people can come up with a sentence - hell, a way of thinking - like that. Being a customer on a free market is 'being patronized'? Like really? How come?

Imagine you have some product you want to sell in large copies and your options are:

1) try to sell it on your own (poor choice for someone new/with low bugdet)

2) use a store which gives you a worse offer

3) use a store which gives you a better offer

4) use both: 1st on their initial offer, 2nd on worse than their initial one

 

Then the only valid options are really 3rd and 4th. And to me it's stupid when in this scenario a customer blames shop for wanting to make the best possible deal for themselves as well. You do realize the product creator chooses the way of distribtion, has a free will and operates on a free market? I really hope you do...

Yes i do in some extend as i also do provide services and i know the struggle with reselling fees on third party marketplaces and exclusivity offers with some of those - it is not an entirely new concept.

 

As you said it is a free market, if a studio decides to take the deal and bonus, which i do NOT condemn in any way, then fine i would also do it if i simply could need the money - only fools are working for free and a new studio is not cheap! But i as the customer will simply do however i prefer and stick to the launher i like and if i only want one i only use one - that is my decision for the stated reasons of my first reply. I can not see any problem or weird way of thinking there. At last i as the customer am not obliged to buy and play a game on a launcher i simply do not want to use just because they have the right to decide to take a deal, same as they are not obliged to release it on the platform i wish for. I do not understand why you think that this is a bad way of thinking?

 

For me it is the same principle as those enterprises that cant just upgrade to a modern software/solution, the infrastructure is already there and will stay there - too much hassle to get back to point 0 with another approach. All my games and social stuff is already on steam and i do not plan on deprecating it. Do not get me wrong, Epic is an awesome software but is lacking features, Steam on the other hand is a hellish mess of security vunerabilites, bugs and weird UX but it is richer in features - and i really like and sometimes depend on those.

 

What i would have really liked to see is them not just copying everyone else and their problems but to provide an solution about splitting the communities. Why did they not just use SteamAPI to connect profiles so you do not have to use different launchers and keep all of the history and goodies? That would in no way interfere with the marketplace issue and they could integrate all Services that provide an API. I could start my Battle.Net/Steam stuff from epic and even see my friends and chat with them, same for other launchers. Simply bridge it but that is where greedy company thinking is blocking possibilities and actual solutions. And if you are already thinking it, Battle.Net is a mandrel in my eye.

[Katarn]

Their free games are a decent incentive.

I never would have learned about Oxenfree had it not been promoted by Epic.

[PurplDrank]

most of my games are on steam, the only reason i see my self switching permanently is if steam becomes shutdown or unsupported by valve. I may temp switch over to epic store if theres a game i really want, but thus far there hasnt been. I mean ill download any store or launcher for a specific game, ive got siege and uplay for example. Epic doesn't have anything I want at the moment. 

 

That said the standalone launchers like Escape from tarkovs keep me from using steam since i play tarkov so much. 

[Soag]

13 hours ago, Arrogath said:

Buying exclusive distribution rights days before a product's release date is the epitome of anti-competitive practices.

I could consider that if they were the major market share holder. They are not. Plus those 'days before release' was most likely the outcome of paper processing, not a 'timed last minute strike'.

Is what they do 'buying a bigger piece of the cake'? Yes. Would they be able to compete with Steam in any other way? I don't think so. Why? Beacause I don't think they could get clients offering new titles at a slightly lower price, and that might not even be a possibility Is their plan to achieve their goal non-standard? Yes, but that's usually the way to go if you want to have a success. You either fail miserably or have a great success and they took the risk - their choice. So far it's neither of the two, time will tell how that will end.

 

Additionally, I haven't seen the overall data so please, if you have some examples, provide me one proving customers got the short end of the stick, prise-wise, by Epic exclusivity deals. I only looked for the data on Metro Exodus and this case proves Epic offered a better deal for both studio and customers.

Right now the game is coming to Steam at the same price as on Epic (who already made great sales on it in the meantime). A no-effort move from Steam. And Steam is well known for lack of effort in the good offers department. Plus their prices on really old games are an atrocity.

 

Personally, I just made a rule for myself. It goes: if the game price is the same on multiple platforms then I will buy it where creator earns the most.

You've already seen many people applying it to CP2077.

In all honesty, it's only applicable to new titles but as far as launchers go, Epic has the advantage over Steam in here.

 

Finally, you may not like how they do things but it's hard to deny their moves revitalized a stale environment of game distribution industry.

And that's always good for the customer.

Don't like them? Sure, don't use their stuff if you don't want to, but you, as a client, will have benefits from them entering the market.

Here's a good read on the matter: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3487735/a-year-in-the-epic-games-stores-fight-against-steam-has-made-all-pc-gaming-better.html

 

15 hours ago, Bumbummen said:

I do not understand why you think that this is a bad way of thinking?

The usage of word 'patronize' is what struck me the most.

I really hope it was a bad choice of wording your thoughts. Or misunderstanding of the meaning behind the word.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/patronize

If not, I don't know what to say to that... Maybe 'care to explain?' would shed more light, I just don't know at this point...

 

12 hours ago, Bumbummen said:

At last i as the customer am not obliged to buy and play a game on a launcher i simply do not want to use just because they have the right to decide to take a deal, same as they are not obliged to release it on the platform i wish for. I do not understand why you think that this is a bad way of thinking?

I don't. I think it's totally valid. You are a customer and you make the choice of buying/not buying product for whatever your reasons are.

And that's the point, you have that choice and you make it. But what I also notice in some cases (not necessarily yours) is some form of resentment customers (gamers) uphold against the distributing company for a strange reason. Because they would REALLY want the product, but they are hard stuck on their beliefs system and that creates some form of negative feelings which they aim towards said company. A 'oh they are bad, because now I can't get the product' way of thinking. No, you can, you just opted out for your own personal reasons. It's those reasons that prevent you, you yourself, to be precise, not the company. But hey, state of denial is normal for humans. I can't be blamed, oh no. And definitely not for how I feel. To the point people don't even consider them being the reason. Mark of our times.
 

[JabroniBaloney]

Epic bad, hail Steam!

[Arrogath]

7 hours ago, Soag said:

Is what they do 'buying a bigger piece of the cake'? Yes. Would they be able to compete with Steam in any other way? I don't think so

If their store has no significant benefit then they should just fuck off into obscurity. They have plenty of perfectly reasonable avenues for exclusivity, they could limit all future games using the unreal engine to their store. There's a reason they don't do that, they would lose developer interest in the market, but at least that would be a reasonable condition.

 

Buying exclusives after they've already been funded and developed isn't in the best interests of the consumers since it artificially limits the market, the best outcome would be availability from multiple marketplaces but then epic would have to offer more than a broken piece of shit unfinished storefront

[Arrogath]

6 hours ago, JabroniBaloney said:

Epic bad, hail Steam!

Steam isn't exactly king shit either, it's just better than epic for the time being by merit of how long it has been polished. Online storefronts will always come with considerably large downsides such as games being removed from the store and players library without notice. The risk of being locked out of all the games you've bought is also pretty rough, especially for people with larger collections. DRM free games on GoG are one potential solution, but there will still be titles made unavailable so if you don't maintain backups you could be out of luck in the future

[Bumbummen]

7 hours ago, Soag said:

The usage of word 'patronize' is what struck me the most.

I really hope it was a bad choice of wording your thoughts. Or misunderstanding of the meaning behind the word.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/patronize

If not, I don't know what to say to that... Maybe 'care to explain?' would shed more light, I just don't know at this point...

Looks like i should take english lessons then, another user even told me i was rude to him xD. I am not a native speaker (i am from tschörmany) and i use deepl/translate most of time to fix up my incomplete vocabulary so please do not take it as literally. I really should note that in my signature or somewhere ^^

 

But what i meant by that is that it creates the situation of a temporary monopole, you can only buy it there for one year so it is time exclusive so in order to play it on release and "live the hype" you will have to use Epic Launcher so for the end user the choice is pretty much take it or wait one year. To me it is just a form of a bussines practice where you make multiple offers but only the one that is better for you as the seller is the attactive one. To me that is not good for the customer and it is not to blame on the developers, management and epic set the terms in the end.

 

7 hours ago, Soag said:

I don't. I think it's totally valid. You are a customer and you make the choice of buying/not buying product for whatever your reasons are.

And that's the point, you have that choice and you make it. But what I also notice in some cases (not necessarily yours) is some form of resentment customers (gamers) uphold against the distributing company for a strange reason. Because they would REALLY want the product, but they are hard stuck on their beliefs system and that creates some form of negative feelings which they aim towards said company. A 'oh they are bad, because now I can't get the product' way of thinking. No, you can, you just opted out for your own personal reasons. It's those reasons that prevent you, you yourself, to be precise, not the company. But hey, state of denial is normal for humans. I can't be blamed, oh no. And definitely not for how I feel. To the point people don't even consider them being the reason. Mark of our times.

As a software engineer i myself honor and respect the work of other developers, espicially those that share some knowledge of their R&D, and i feel a bit sorry for them sometimes.

Imagine puring all of your will and creativity into something over a curse of years just thath it gets burned in a day and to be hated for it. I do not like or tolerate plain out hating the devs by attacking them verbally or hating without any constructive feedback - those peple just do whatever the Ticket they work on wants them to do. If people want a change they have to tell them what they want in a way that does not demoralize them and gives them constructive feedback since they actually work with the management and have some control with their opinion.

On the other hand if i'd lead a studio i would communiate such a deal immediately and be very transparent on why it was necessary and what benefits it brings to the company and therefore to the product and future releases, a Non-NDA would be indiscussable for me as in my opinion an NDA would be them tricking my customers in my name but that is not the decision of a developer. What do you think about that and the communication of some of the games that got some shitstorm for being on epic for one year, do you think it could have been avoided to some extend by communication?

[Arrogath]

7 hours ago, Bumbummen said:

On the other hand if i'd lead a studio i would communicate such a deal immediately and be very transparent on why it was necessary and what benefits it brings to the company and therefore to the product and future releases, a Non-NDA would be indiscussable for me as in my opinion an NDA would be them tricking my customers in my name but that is not the decision of a developer. What do you think about that and the communication of some of the games that got some shitstorm for being on epic for one year, do you think it could have been avoided to some extend by communication?

The lack of transparency and putting off announcing epic exclusivity, along with announcing epic exclusivity after the game has already been advertised for other store fronts isn't helping their image at all. If I knew a game was going to be epic exclusive from day one I wouldn't be happy, but there wouldn't be that feeling of betrayal from a last minute switch up. It gets even worse when the game is crowdfunded and getting final polish as they sell out to epic. There have even been cases of backer rewards being unavailable on their platform of choice due to the deal, not a good look.

[zassou]

29 minutes ago, Arrogath said:

The lack of transparency and putting off announcing epic exclusivity, along with announcing epic exclusivity after the game has already been advertised for other store fronts isn't helping their image at all. If I knew a game was going to be epic exclusive from day one I wouldn't be happy, but there wouldn't be that feeling of betrayal from a last minute switch up. It gets even worse when the game is crowdfunded and getting final polish as they sell out to epic. There have even been cases of backer rewards being unavailable on their platform of choice due to the deal, not a good look.

yeah, the feeling of betrayal is slowly killing the company. for an indie dev, i dont think it's easy to say no to epic money, especially when you're having trouble paying the daily expenses. therefore i dont blame them for accepting that tim sweeney money. even as stupid as obblet's dev team, i can understand where they coming from, i just dont think they are very good PR people. (spoiler: they totally botched it)

 

that being said, knowing that epic is a giant prick of the industry, what could indie dev do to sell their game? probably just stick to your plan, say no to sweeney, and make a fuss about it. launch your game on multiple platforms, even microsoft store, just to piss off epic. players like this, it shows how much you care about your protential customer and you're respect their way.

[tatte]

Really well made, system-wide controller remapping could be a solid reason to install their launcher.

 

If they did something amazing with VR I might take a look, but that's far from a guarantee. An MMORPG could also do the trick.

 

Perfect Discord integration, aka "Open Discord" -button, instead of having their own social features would be appreciated.

 

Edit/ Some sort of "VPN Mode" for 2FA would also be nice. "Shh, save the freakouts for when I try to spend money. Just recognise the machine, stay calm, and let me in."

[JZStudios]

On 2/20/2020 at 7:47 AM, JoostinOnline said:

I currently have all the games I want to play launchable from Steam Library (which got a very good UI update a few months ago).

That god awful Steam UI and my acceptance into the GOG Galaxy 2.0 beta has prevented me from even periodically opening Steam because it gives me a headache to look at the afterbirth aftermath of that aborted brain child designed by a flock of blind monkeys. Maybe the flying ones from Wizard of Oz.

Ironically a bunch of the EGS games I've been snagging free are also DRM free, like Batman Arkham Knight which is 100% DRM free, and as such runs smoother than the still Denuvo'd Steam version. I also recommend Galaxy 2.0. When it gets a final launch you're supposed to be able to merge your friends list across all stores and even the consoles, and automagically keep track of everything. Works pretty well for me so far and already has more options than the terrible Steam UI.

On 2/20/2020 at 10:19 AM, RejZoR said:

What brought me to EGS? Free games. Nothing else. Their exclusives are stupid and anti-consumer, their client is garbage and I just don't want to deal with yet another game client. If it's for their own games only, then fine. But for everything, no thanks. Reasons why I'm fine with Steam is because apart from Valve's own games, nothing is exclusive and I can opt for it on GOG instead if I want. Most EGS games are not. And getting it 1 year later like Metro Exodus is just pointless. So much later when all the fuss is already gone. Heh. I probably won't even ever buy it at this point and I own both original Metro's on Steam and both Redux on GOG...

That's a dumb line of thought. You can't enjoy a game simply because it's beyond it's hype period? Not to mention that the Steam release should be relatively active given how many people boycotted the EGS version for literally zero reason.