Jump to content
IGNORED

Epic Games Store


Bojangle
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Untogether said:

 

If that's a bit rich for your blood they also have Watch Dogs 2 for, erm, £49.99

 

Epic seem to be rather optimistic in their pricing strategy so far.

 

The free games are effectively the only reason I've got it on my system at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ronin said:

 

They probably have to relate to their involvement with Sony over those games still, but they made this deal with the EGS after they received funding from NetEase and went independent. Also thatgamecompany went independent after their 3-game contract with Sony didnt they? Im not sure how much Sony are involved in these titles now, other than possibly receiving royalties from their sales on other platforms.

 

Sony own the copyright and the IP. It's there in black and white. These games are only being released with the express permission of Sony, and likely a financial incentive too.

 

I agree though that Sony won't be the publisher of these releases. Think of it like Sega's involvement with Bayonetta 1 and 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2019 at 11:02, Mallet said:

I am in no way against competition, my preferred platform is gog.com not Steam, but I have yet to see a single thing about this affair that promises anything good for me as a consumer.

 

I suppose you have to take the enlightened self-interest approach to it, rather than merely the self-interest approach to it.

 

Tim Sweeney's basic argument, one which apparently a fair amount of other developers share, is that 30% is taking the piss and the distribution platform cut needs to go way down. If developers get more of the revenue, more of them will be profitable and allow them to make bigger and better games for you in the future, which is where the enlightened part comes in.

 

According to an article I saw recently, the PC is just the opening salvo in the war against 30%, Google is next on Epic's to-do list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

I suppose you have to take the enlightened self-interest approach to it, rather than merely the self-interest approach to it.

 

Tim Sweeney's basic argument, one which apparently a fair amount of other developers share, is that 30% is taking the piss and the distribution platform cut needs to go way down. If developers get more of the revenue, more of them will be profitable and allow them to make bigger and better games for you in the future, which is where the enlightened part comes in.

 

According to an article I saw recently, the PC is just the opening salvo in the war against 30%, Google is next on Epic's to-do list.

Why is it always the consumer that is asked to take the enlightened approach? Knowing how corporations work most if not all of that extra profit will go to bonuses for executives and bigger dividends for share holders. 

 

I never understood why people treat game publishers, and most games are published by a publisher not self published by a developer, differently to any other multi national company. Their goal is to get as much money as they can out of their customers, they do not have your best interests in mind when they make decisions. Which is fine by me as I don't have their interests in mind when I buy something. 

 

If I buy a box of cornflakes I don't care how the revenue split between store, supplier and manufacturer is set up in the vague hope I may get a better box of cornflakes in the future why should it be different with video games? The corporations work the same, see the recent lay offs in the gaming industry for evidence, so what is the point in the consumer having loyalty to one multi national company over another?

 

Speaking as a consumer the Epic Store is a bad deal, it's only recently they added a search function for god's sake. Offer me an experience similar to Steam or pass on some of that increased revenue to have lower prices on the Epic store or make the games DRM free like gog.com to make up for the glaring lack of features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mushashi said:

According to an article I saw recently, the PC is just the opening salvo in the war against 30%, Google is next on Epic's to-do list.

 

Android is surely a lot harder to do? Having to sideload a separate store is going to hit take up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mallet said:

Speaking as a consumer the Epic Store is a bad deal, it's only recently they added a search function for god's sake. Offer me an experience similar to Steam or pass on some of that increased revenue to have lower prices on the Epic store or make the games DRM free like gog.com to make up for the glaring lack of features.

 

At the moment it’s the exclusives that make up for the lack of features. If they stop that then maybe it is something else (cheaper, DRM free, exclusive DLC, a better and more feature rich experience, etc).

 

Right now the store doesn’t attract users, just buyers. It’s basically bricks and mortar retailing with exclusivity. For someone like myself right now, where nothing I want to play is exclusive to it I have no interest. Do I think developers maybe deserve a bigger cut, yeah, probably. Do I care enough to install some more shit on my PC that is a store with a run button... not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2019 at 16:59, Mallet said:

Why is it always the consumer that is asked to take the enlightened approach? Knowing how corporations work most if not all of that extra profit will go to bonuses for executives and bigger dividends for share holders. 

 

I never understood why people treat game publishers, and most games are published by a publisher not self published by a developer, differently to any other multi national company. Their goal is to get as much money as they can out of their customers, they do not have your best interests in mind when they make decisions. Which is fine by me as I don't have their interests in mind when I buy something. 

 

If I buy a box of cornflakes I don't care how the revenue split between store, supplier and manufacturer is set up in the vague hope I may get a better box of cornflakes in the future why should it be different with video games? The corporations work the same, see the recent lay offs in the gaming industry for evidence, so what is the point in the consumer having loyalty to one multi national company over another?

 

Speaking as a consumer the Epic Store is a bad deal, it's only recently they added a search function for god's sake. Offer me an experience similar to Steam or pass on some of that increased revenue to have lower prices on the Epic store or make the games DRM free like gog.com to make up for the glaring lack of features.

 

You are incorrect, indie games make up the vast bulk of releases now, and they generally do not go through a publisher. Epic don't use a publisher for instance, neither do Valve in the case of well known larger developers.

 

People are free to vote with their wallets however they like, much in the same way most people don't give two shits as to the working conditions or environmental impact of most other consumer goods and services are created in, price is paramount. Factory farming was invented for precisely that reason too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2019 at 17:33, VN1X said:

(shopping cart in 6 months, please be excite)

 

Ironically, this is warpspeed store development, given that other companies with even more money gushing from every orifice took over a decade to implement that feature ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

Ironically, this is warpspeed store development, given that other companies with even more money gushing from every orifice took over a decade to implement that feature ;)

 

Surely though, any store launching in 2018 should've had a number of basic features from the start? No search function, no wishlisting, no shopping basket etc? Any argument that is along the lines of "Well it took Valve/EA/Ubisoft etc years to have that" is irrelevant, because that isn't the world we live in now, people expect these types of things from day 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

You are incorrect, indie games make up the vast bulk of releases now, and they generally do not go through a publisher. Epic don't use a publisher for instance, neither do Valve in the case of well known larger developers.

 

People are free to vote with their wallets however they like, much in the same way most people don't give two shits as to the working conditions or environmental impact of most other consumer goods and services are created in, price is paramount. Factory farming was invented for precisely that reason too.

The big hitters that Epic will need to win more market share are all published though.

 

Free to vote with their wallets is exactly what the developers and publishers taking Epics cash are doing as well.

 

They know it it is a store with no social features and a much poorer overall experience for the people buying their games, do they give two shits about their customer's experience? Yet the developers who vote with their wallets are praised for creating competition while the gamers who do it are accused of being crying steam fan boys or some such, not necessarily in this thread but that is the narrative a lot of people are pushing.

 

In just about every other market I can think of the stores and suppliers are wary of upsetting their customer base but in gaming they will happily shit all over their customers while half the customer base cheers them on from the side lines. I doubt it will make a difference in the end but people not voting with their wallets is exactly how we ended up with broken, unfinished games being released. It's how we ended up with loot boxes, with  costumes and alternative skins that used to be in game rewards now sold as 'DLC'

 

Voting with your wallet is the only language companies listen to.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2019 at 18:57, Gabe said:

 

Surely though, any store launching in 2018 should've had a number of basic features from the start? No search function, no wishlisting, no shopping basket etc? Any argument that is along the lines of "Well it took Valve/EA/Ubisoft etc years to have that" is irrelevant, because that isn't the world we live in now, people expect these types of things from day 1.

 

Well then clearly expectations and how long it takes to properly implement these sorts of features are out of whack. Apparently development isn't quite that easy, even when you've got $Billions in yearly profits and thousands of developers to throw at a problem, just ask Microsoft for instance.

 

 

On 23/03/2019 at 19:06, Mallet said:

The big hitters that Epic will need to win more market share are all published though.

 

Free to vote with their wallets is exactly what the developers and publishers taking Epics cash are doing as well.

 

They know it it is a store with no social features and a much poorer overall experience for the people buying their games, do they give two shits about their customer's experience? Yet the developers who vote with their wallets are praised for creating competition while the gamers who do it are accused of being crying steam fan boys or some such, not necessarily in this thread but that is the narrative a lot of people are pushing.

 

In just about every other market I can think of the stores and suppliers are wary of upsetting their customer base but in gaming they will happily shit all over their customers while half the customer base cheers them on from the side lines. I doubt it will make a difference in the end but people not voting with their wallets is exactly how we ended up with broken, unfinished games being released. It's how we ended up with loot boxes, with  costumes and alternative skins that used to be in game rewards now sold as 'DLC'

 

Voting with your wallet is the only language companies listen to.

 

 

 

 

 

The reasons why Epic have targeted the big publisher funded games is obvious enough, because secretly, despite some people claiming otherwise, small indie games aren't what most buyers actually buy in large numbers usually so they had to target those games to gain traction. Indie-only competitors to Valve exist, they aren't even a rounding error in terms of market share and mindshare is non-existent for them.

 

Your complaints about EGS are about its current state, it's bare-bones, but will it always be this way? doubtful. The mastermind behind it, Sergey Galyokin has given his reasons for why you shouldn't expect feature parity with Valve, he's more interested in building a shop for the coming generation apparently.

 

I've given you some of the thinking behind the existence of the EGS, it's a developer-first idea, rather than something attempting to please consumers first and foremost, that will come later when they become more entrenched and successful.

 

 

Supermarkets are an interesting example of a customer first sort of business, and they do regularly fuck over their suppliers, so somebody has to carry the cost if somebody else benefits, you very rarely get a win-win-win situation.

 

 

 

On 22/03/2019 at 17:06, kensei said:

 

Android is surely a lot harder to do? Having to sideload a separate store is going to hit take up?

 

They'll use their existing Fortnite install base to kickstart things there too. The only place I've seen it mentioned was a very recent magazine article, but the magazine is highly respected so I'm assuming it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mushashi said:

 

Well then clearly expectations and how long it takes to properly implement these sorts of features are out of whack. Apparently development isn't quite that easy, even when you've got $Billions in yearly profits and thousands of developers to throw at a problem, just ask Microsoft for instance.

 

This is completely backward-thinking though - nobody forced them to launch the store before certain features were ready, did they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but they’ll have made a decision based on what they believe the minimum viable product is. Carts, search and other features don’t appear to have been considered necessary. Only time will tell if they’re right. Or whether they can develop fast enough to get/keep people using it in the way they want (which from what I’ve read as is a store, not so much a community).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gabe said:

 

This is completely backward-thinking though - nobody forced them to launch the store before certain features were ready, did they?

Aside from his usual ragging on Microsoft, across any thread that will permit it, what he doesn't note is that the Store wasn't really setup in a way that gamers might expect (clearly, from the architecture issues it's had, never mind missing features) and wasn't really fleshed out in general thanks to a slow start, and not a massive amount of progress, in UWP apps since Win 8. It's "fine" for the amount of time you use it and the small amount of useful apps on it, outside of gaming. What's always been desperately missing is MS knocking it out of the park with 1st party examples. It's arguably taken the O365 lot to eventually lead the way there.

 

They're clearly changing this, particularly with the changes to the Xbox division and the behind the scenes changes in Win 10 19H1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, TehStu said:

Aside from his usual ragging on Microsoft, across any thread that will permit it, what he doesn't note is that the Store wasn't really setup in a way that gamers might expect (clearly, from the architecture issues it's had, never mind missing features) and wasn't really fleshed out in general thanks to a slow start, and not a massive amount of progress, in UWP apps since Win 8. It's "fine" for the amount of time you use it and the small amount of useful apps on it, outside of gaming. What's always been desperately missing is MS knocking it out of the park with 1st party examples. It's arguably taken the O365 lot to eventually lead the way there.

 

They're clearly changing this, particularly with the changes to the Xbox division and the behind the scenes changes in Win 10 19H1.

 

I see the secret Bat Signal is still working ;)

 

I wasn't specifically referring to the most current attempt at a store. Microsoft have had multiple attempts on the PC to kickstart selling shit to people, so any complaints about Epic compared to how Microsoft have fared, considering their expertise in software and more money than God would indicate people having expectations which exceed reality.

 

Somebody else mentioned the fact that even Microsoft didn't implement a shopping cart for over a decade (it only arrived last year to a Microsoft operated game distribution platform) when people laughed at the fact that Epic were only going to do it within the first year of operations, which kind of tells you it's either not that important or really hard to do apparently,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, there's a bonkers as fuck sale on the Epic store right now. The new John Wick game is a fiver, despite not being out yet, My Time At Portia is a tenner, Satisfactory is £16.99 and Shakedown Hawaii is a fiver. It's difficult to say no to John Wick Hex at that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.