this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
480 points (94.8% liked)

PCGaming

6542 readers
452 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Epic First Run programme allows developers of any size to claim 100% of revenue if they agree to make their game exclusive on the Epic Games Store for six months.

After the six months are up, the game will revert to the standard Epic Games Store revenue split of 88% for the developer and 12% for Epic Games.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Ouf, crazy how many people are actually pushing for valve to have a complete monopoly. Ya it's a good product but so was chrome. Diversity is important for consumers.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Funny how most of us are also just fine with GoG, green man gaming, humble bundle, and the like. Just because a lot of people don't like one particular store front and practices doesn't mean we're cheering on monopolization.

[–] verysoft@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If an actual competitor arises sure, but why support scummy anti-consumer practices?

[–] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair point, I guess I was ready to disregard it because of the money going to devs and epic already taking less of a cut then valve. Exclusives do suck.

[–] verysoft@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Valve do take a larger cut, but that money is going into some incredible services both for consumers and developers with Steamworks. Much larger audience too, which makes up for the larger cut anyway.
Epic just want a slice of the revenue while putting in minimal effort, so they just buy exclusives and free game promos, so as far as I am concerned they can fuck off.

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Monopoly", and yet when a game is on Steam I can buy it wherever I want. What stores can I buy Epic exclusives exactly?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just because the competition fucking sucks ass doesn't mean the best one has a monopoly. 🤦‍♂️ There is still competition... It's just weak as shit.

Maybe if the competition stepped up and offered similar services and functions, they wouldn't need to pull bullshit like Epic is with exclusivity deals, and actually take some market share.

GOG Galaxy is a decent one. It actually offers a lot of what makes Steam so strong. It's still not as good, but they also deal with a certain niche area of gaming, making even their store more relevant than EGS, Origin, etc.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

GOG is wonderful! You don't even need to use a launcher if you don't want to, DRM free is my jam.

That said, I wish they would improve their launcher, especially when it comes to updating games: I shouldn't need hundreds of gigs of free space to patch a big game.

[–] entropicshart@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

There is a lot more history to Epic than just a monopoly; that company and ceo dug their grave and they can sit in it.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 9 points 1 year ago

Reading the posts... everyone seems pretty cool with GoG... Value and GoG sitting in a tree, not being assholes yippeeee

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don't mind competition but I hate superfluous launchers that launch when you launch a game from another launcher.

I'd love to see competing game stores that were all genuinely good, but let's be honest: Most of them are mediocre-to-shit.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

They need to make a better product to compete. I'm not rooting for valve but epic can eat a bag of dicks too.

[–] criticalimpact@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Epic have more than enough fortnite money to make a launcher that's not shit

[–] net00@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm not responsible for Epic being successful. Steam has always been my only place for games, and a few months ago I even deleted my Epic account with a few free games (CIV 6, GTA V) and purchased them on Steam summer sale.

I can't be arsed to make new accounts, set up friends, payments, install a bunch of shit again and again for any storefront that pops up. Steam is reliable, has good sales, and hasn't pissed its users off to make them leave.

I'm not even sure luring devs with 6 months of exclusivity is a bad thing for steam users. Games come out in such bad states nowadays that probably sticking with steam and getting a functional game later is better than being a beta tester on Epic.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Valve has won me over with Steam Deck too. It's more stream lined to install a game and get going on Linux compared to the setup for other launchers. Maybe other competitors should pay attention to Linux more. If they are supposedly for open platforms then why not actually invest in making the experience better on Linux as opposed to being so stubborn in only supporting the windows ecosystem. You'd think Epic would jump on it with how they've constantly complained about Apple's ecosystem and Android even though that at least allows side loading.

[–] verysoft@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Epic complain because it doesnt benefit them. If they were the one with a large ecosystem, you bet it would be closed down as much as possible. Fuck Epic games, shitty company.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

That's like Walmart showing up to a town that didn't have any and claiming it's diversity because it isn't Costco. Options are good, but there needs to actually be a better reason for customers to use it than just use it even though it sucks for the sake of competition. Especially if this competitor is taking the approach of buying out the competition to remove availability, which doesn't give the impression they are a company with goals of being benevolent should they get bigger.