• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

New Epic Store Opened Up

thestrangebrew1

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2011
2,996
164
106
Didn't see anything posted but the Epic Store opened and they're giving a free game every 2 weeks. I don't play any epic games but Subnautica will be a freebie starting 12/14/18-12/27/18. I'm glad I've been holding out on this game for a sale, and it appears it'll be free next week. Hopefully it's not "free" for the 2 wks, but actually the whole game will be mine. Sucks I have to install and sign in to yet another launcher, but I've been looking forward to checking this game out. Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spg1

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
I was made aware because Supergiant is launching their next game in exclusive early access on the Epic Store. Hades, if anyone wants the title.

I already had the launcher from free Shadow Complex forever ago.

This store might have a shot, with Fortnite and the 12% cut Epic takes (vs. 30% from everyone else).

EDIT: Not off to a fantastic start, though. It prompted for an install location for my (already installed) Shadow Complex. In pointing the launcher to the location, it just complains that the directory is not empty. There was no entry in my control panel, so I was forced to just delete the folder and re-download so it can be installed. Again.
 
Last edited:

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,346
716
136
I do hope that some competition in this market does make things better for consumers and developers alike, but I worry that the line between developer and publisher is so blurred at this point that we're just going to end up with a bunch of different launchers with some exclusives on all of them.

At this point I'm sure I have (had) some games on stardock's old launcher, some games on GOG, some games on Origin, some games on Blizzard's launcher, some games on Uplay... And maybe somewhere else, I don't remember.

I've played games for so long that I feel like I'm over the whole "must play" desire. I can live with never playing another Blizzard or Epic game again so long as I have a decent sampling of games available to me on my platform of choice: Steam.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Steam has not been my platform of choice for a long time, despite having most of my library there. Valve, as a company, has no idea how to manage their vast catalog/community/developer relationships, and they have shown zero interest in improving.

gog.com is my platform of choice now. Many features that Steam has that gog lacks are of no consequence these days as you go third party for things like voice and chat (Discord). Steam streaming is pointless, etc. Publishers just need to bring back private servers, and these launchers will matter a lot less. But maybe that's exactly why they won't make a comeback.

I don't care at all about launchers for the most part. I have Steam, gog.com, Origin, uplay, battle.net, epic, Twitch, Discord, and bigfish on my system. On top of those, I have accounts with GMG, fanatical, HIB, and razer that I can recall off the top of my head. One location would be ideal, but no launcher will achieve that unless you are actively denying yourself games you may legitimately enjoy just to have one launcher.

I would hope we're just a few years or so away from a Movies Anywhere type deal happening.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
I went back to pirating. Just much easier. On the plus side I only pirate good games, so that's like 1-2 games every 2-3 years :D

Don't worry, I mail them cash in an unmarked envelop.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,862
2,378
126
I do hope that some competition in this market does make things better for consumers and developers alike,
This is not the sort of competition that makes things better for consumers. We already have that. I probably buy half my games on the Humble Store or Fanatical already. This is ultimately going to hurt consumers as they are going to compete by forcing developers into exclusive contracts to try to force consumers onto their platform, that means less competition overall since games get locked into one platform and I can't buy it from someone else that is willing to take a smaller cut. This is the beginning of the PC version of the console wars.
 

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,816
217
106
I understand why every single publisher wants their own launcher but this is getting ridiculous. I absolutely hate EA and all of their iPhone copy/paste FPS games so Origin won't ever happen for me and I only use battle.net for Starcraft Remastered. If I play a Farcry game, I'll reinstall Uplay and immediately uninstall it after.

One digital distributor is enough for me. However, I'm a fairly huge fan of Epic and Supergiant, so if the games are decent (Free is one of my favorite genres), then I'll probably look into it eventually. For now, after the last Steam sale, I have plenty of games (not mentioning my backlog) that can tide me over long enough for the Epic exclusives to find their way to Steam or elsewhere.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,189
125
106
I can't install the Store as it required a D drive, which I have as a cache drive and as such will not install anything to it. Very poor installer right off the bat, can't comment on anything else as I haven't seen it.

Update: After 3 days waiting support finally got back to me and told me to "move" the installer to the drive you want to install it on and it then worked, it's a really badly coded installer. They said they were working on a new installer so hopefully it will be better in the future.
 
Last edited:

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
This is not the sort of competition that makes things better for consumers. We already have that. I probably buy half my games on the Humble Store or Fanatical already. This is ultimately going to hurt consumers as they are going to compete by forcing developers into exclusive contracts to try to force consumers onto their platform, that means less competition overall since games get locked into one platform and I can't buy it from someone else that is willing to take a smaller cut. This is the beginning of the PC version of the console wars.
The competition you claim that we have, we don't. These keys are almost exclusively all Steam (the argument is about multiple stores), and it is usually detrimental to developers (many aren't compensated appropriately for these keys).

Consoles compete with each other just fine. With PC stores, there's also no upfront cost like there is with consoles. I don't see this as a valid argument. There's literally no cost difference to consumers, just another launcher. Stores competing on rates is only good for developers, especially the smaller houses.

It won't convince publishers to give up their 0% share (proprietary launchers), but I don't see how this can be anything but good all around.
 

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
3,955
62
91
I don't trust Epic after they removed Infinity Blade from Apple Store just because they felt like it. They justified it by "not having the resources to support it", but that's not our problem, and I don't see why we as customers should lose access to the games because of that. Basically, just because you paid money for any games made by Epic, doesn't mean you get to keep said games forever. Somewhere, in fine print, it says that Epic reserves the right to take your right to play the games you paid for at any point in time.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
You can redownload Infinity Blade if you purchased it through your purchase history. Maybe inform yourself better so as to avoid getting all worked up over this.

It's simply not available for new purchases, and IAPs are dead.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
There's something nefarious brewing that no one is talking about. A company should want it's product EVERYWHERE. There is NO reason for it to be on an exclusive platform - unless they are being paid to do it, aka consoles. I get that companies want more money and being on Steam isn't free, however if we only look at that aspect, and the lost sales (we know they have lost sales) then they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are sacrificing sales numbers for a little bit more profit - which ultimately to me seems like will really be less due to less sales. The only way this adds up is if the real goal here is data mining and selling customer data like every other company does now.

I highly suspect that is the real goal of all these 'i want my own storefront' wannabe's. It's too much work and infrastructure maintanence, etc to just make an extra 10% but sell 40% less copies.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
You're pulling numbers straight out of your butt.

I imagine that the people who will want to play Dragon Age far outnumber the people who will want to play Dragon Age BUT ONLY IF IT'S ON STEAM. Same goes for PC CoD players, Elder Scrolls, etc.

Also, the crux of your argument seems to lie in the idea that the 30% is absolutely mandatory, and Valve is just scraping by on that instead of raking in money hand over fist as it takes its cut (while doing literally nothing on their end). You also seem to be implying that only these other stores must be mining your data, and that Valve can't possibly be doing that already.

The big flashing red light that should tell you to take off your tinfoil hat and go outside is that Origin, Uplay, battle.net, et al. have not shut down and come crawling back to Valve. Origin especially has existed long enough that if it was not viable, EA would have pulled the plug. If sales are as down as you claim, there would also be far less personal data mine, so it's still not profitable.

I have literally no clue how you could have arrived at that conclusion. Not a single thing you said makes any kind of sense if you think about critically at all.

And no, companies don't want their product everywhere. Luis Vuitton does not want their products at Target. Apple doesn't want their iPhones sitting next to the burner phones at the grocery store. Companies want their products everywhere it makes sense, and one digital storefront on PC is literally no different than any other as far as consumer access goes, so why bother maintaining a Steam copy on top of an Origin copy on top of ... when you can just maintain the one copy, and keep more of each sale?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
Blizzard was around long before steam was established, and it's pull was due to its multiplayer network. It's Blizzard, when they were established, this was already a common thing.

GOG is a different thing all together, but they also are old enough that they're already well established.

Uplay doesn't sell on its own store exclusively.

Origin is really the only one doing this successfully, but I guarantee you they are selling less games because of it.

As for tin foil - not really, I would be very surprised if Steam wasn't doing it too. That is what 'internet' companies do. Whether they tell you about it or not.

To clarify, I'm speculating. The numbers I threw out were just guesses used for examples. Obviously the numbers could be higher or lower, but whatever the number is, I guarantee you it is lower than if they stuck to the most popular storefront (or even if they put it on steam AND origin). PC gamers have been very vocal about this and yes, there are many who will still buy X regardless of what hoops they have to jump through, but those numbers are getting smaller. Sure, some will survive, but it just seems odd that everyone thinks they need to do this now. It's a lot of hassle for little payback, unless there's more to it than we're being told.

Don't be so quick to be dismissive of this idea - it's far beyond a conspiracy theory, it is practically everyday business these days.
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
Also, we've established that apparently you are just fine with 100 different launchers, but most of us aren't. The competition you say exists for multiple storefronts, only exists because the other non-storefronts sell keys. We can debate all day long where they get them, or how much the publishers get from them, but THAT is better for consumers, not the other way around.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,084
249
116
The only problem I have with the Epic store is the fact that they're paying for exclusivity from other devs. I won't buy any non-Epic game exclusive to the Epic store, ever.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Uplay sells in multiple storefronts, but they all require uplay to be installed. You're not getting around having uplay on your machine just because you bought it on Steam or wherever. I don't so much care about your personal data idea, my issue was your completely made up and baseless numbers.

I also fail to see how key resellers have helped with storefront competition. I also do not know of any devs that benefit from sites like g2a and cdkeys.

My being okay with multiple launchers is beside the point. People not preferring multiple launchers is beside the point. I chalk that up to personal preference and really don't care. It's the clamoring for a monopoly that I think is the dumbest thing ever. Even if you want to stay on Steam exclusively, competition forces Valve to, you know, compete. That's something they haven't had to do in a very long time, and it shows.

Again, like I've stated, a Movies Anywhere type platform is what's required at this point. It might not be so hard to implement without the launchers' blessings, it just needs to know where to look for games, and make the correct calls behind the scenes. But that's dangerous, as access can be changed on a whim. All the storefront companies would need to provide an API, or agree on a common access method (far less likely). Like Movies Anywhere, it's going to require an un-ignorable player to start it off. At the moment, that is only Valve or Epic.

And this "Epic buying exclusives is bad" idea is also bad. They may be paying some devs up front to get momentum going, but the larger cut devs get to keep will keep them there, assuming the store takes off (and it likely will, ). Like, what's the fear trap here? The store fails and you lose your game forever? GFWL failed and no one really lost their games. Most publishers honored your prior purchase and migrated it to Steam. I don't see how this is such a bad thing.

The end goal is that I should buy once, and launch anywhere. Gamers should be pressing for this, and no, Steam's current method of adding random executables isn't good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,084
249
116
Your post makes no sense. You want a Movies Anywhere type program and then proceed to say exclusives aren't bad. What? I don't even know how you begin to rationalize those two thoughts in your mind.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
If you think multiple front ends is beside the point, then you missed the entire point.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Your post makes no sense. You want a Movies Anywhere type program and then proceed to say exclusives aren't bad. What? I don't even know how you begin to rationalize those two thoughts in your mind.
Tell me what other studios distribute Disney films. Films are exclusive by nature, yet Movies Anywhere is a service that works. Own an Apple TV and prefer iTunes but VUDU is having a great 4K sale? (They are, by the way) You're covered to purchase from VUDU and watch on your Apple TV, and not just through VUDU, but from iTunes if that's your front-end of choice. I mean, do you not know how Movies Anywhere works?

And how did you manage to misread my statement so bad? I said what I said in the context of the short term. Once that code is ported to PC as a platform, the hard work is done. The only exclusive I really care about, Hades, just says 'we'll see' when it comes to releasing on multiple storefronts.

So if Epic is payrolling an exclusive, but a Movies Anywhere type service exists, devs and customers win. But I don't see Epic financing exclusives for the entirety of their existence; it will eventually just be their first-party stuff. You also failed to answer my questions.

Sony may be the closest to this being a reality, as their streaming service does allow you to play Playstation exclusives on PC. If the solution comes in the form of a streaming service, I don't think I'd like it too much, though.

If you think multiple front ends is beside the point, then you missed the entire point.
Says the person who entered the conversation completely off base with data mining theories and made up numbers. This thread never seemed to be about whether the Epic store should exist (People who want to rely solely on Valve are just white noise at this point), but if it is doing enough to differentiate itself. Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems so futile to debate the former point because IT DOES EXIST. So we can't possibly be talking about that.

I think it is differentiating itself, and I think it will force Valve to actually do something (anything, since their approach to all problems is to walk away), which is a miraculous feat at this point. If Epic can move past their current growing pains swiftly and walk the curation line well, they'll easily get Valve sweating.
 
Last edited:

zink77

Member
Jan 16, 2012
98
11
71
I do hope that some competition in this market does make things better for consumers and developers alike.
Not going to happen, the fact mmo', steam even exist means the videogame market is a market for lemons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Those of us who gamed in the 90's never would have imagined the public would be dumb enough to feed microtransaction based games leading to the theft of game ownership. MMO's were the original scam game to get PC RPG players to pay more money for the same RPG. The fact that private servers for Ultima online and wow exist is proof positive the average gamer is a moron.

The videogame market is a market for lemons because the average gamer is stupid. The fact that we have to "login" to play our games on steam for instance is evidence we live in an idiocracy.

We no longer get level editors or sdk's with games for the most part out of the AAA space and dedicated servers are either non existent or controlled by the game company and never give us the exe files. Stuff is going to get worse with windows 10 as they put more and more drm into the OS and presumably hardware soon.
 
Last edited:

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
3,220
209
106
Personally I don't really care about where single player games are sourced from. As long as I can quit whatever store/launcher at the end of the day it is no different then the old days of standalone executable for each game except now we get cloud saves and automatic update checks.

Multiplayer can be troublesome since you can have friends on multiple fronts, but it is mitigated by discord somewhat.
 

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,816
217
106
Multiplayer can be troublesome since you can have friends on multiple fronts, but it is mitigated by discord somewhat.
But these multiple distributors are only dividing the PC crowd. I understand they all want a slice of their own profits, but the playerbase is going to start dwindling when we have 10+ digital distributors.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,084
249
116
Tell me what other studios distribute Disney films. Films are exclusive by nature, yet Movies Anywhere is a service that works. Own an Apple TV and prefer iTunes but VUDU is having a great 4K sale? (They are, by the way) You're covered to purchase from VUDU and watch on your Apple TV, and not just through VUDU, but from iTunes if that's your front-end of choice. I mean, do you not know how Movies Anywhere works?

And how did you manage to misread my statement so bad? I said what I said in the context of the short term. Once that code is ported to PC as a platform, the hard work is done. The only exclusive I really care about, Hades, just says 'we'll see' when it comes to releasing on multiple storefronts.

So if Epic is payrolling an exclusive, but a Movies Anywhere type service exists, devs and customers win. But I don't see Epic financing exclusives for the entirety of their existence; it will eventually just be their first-party stuff. You also failed to answer my questions.

Sony may be the closest to this being a reality, as their streaming service does allow you to play Playstation exclusives on PC. If the solution comes in the form of a streaming service, I don't think I'd like it too much, though.
I mean, do YOU not know how Movies Anywhere works? You can buy from anywhere. You, as a consumer, have choice. With exclusives, there is no choice. You either buy it from the one storefront or don't buy it at all. That storefront no longer has to compete with others with fair pricing, because they know you'll come to them if you want it. And when you buy it, you have to use that platform to play it; you can't buy from Epic and play through Steam. Yet here you are, saying exclusives don't matter. That's cognitive dissonance at its finest.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
Dude's drank the kool-aid, it doesn't matter what you say to him. His responses are exactly the brainwashed 'as long as I can get my favorite 30th verison of a game I'll do whatever bending over they want'.

Regarding my comments about behind the scenes motives, I stand by it. It isn't craziness, it is where most tech companies make the bulk of their money for the last 5 years, and you are a fool if you don't realize this. I'm not saying that publishers ARE doing it...I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if this is not one other reason for them all wanting their own store fronts.

As for 'differetiation' - whatever. I don't care. There isn't much else I need Steam to do. People like to hate on it, and sure it isn't perfect, but it is still far better than any other alternative, short of GoG....and frankly, no one else is going to do what GoG is doing.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY