FA+
Shop
The Epic Store: My 2 cents [Long Rant]
7 years ago
General
So... if you haven't heard, Epic Games is opening their own digital storefront. I've heard a LOT of praise about it... specifically when compared to steam.
But... I don't think it's as much sunshine as it's being painted as.
First,
Steam does need competition
This is a good thing. Steam is kinda a monolith in this case. Being the dominant force for so long has lead to a rather large level of complacency. Having more competition may force their hand on some things, and could maybe being some developers back
However...
1: Bigger cut does NOT equal more profit
One of the things that's being widely touted about the store is the cut the vendor. takes From what I understand, Steam takes a 30% cut (though a recent announcement changed this to be variable based on total sales), while Epic is touting a 15% cut, and waving royalty fees for using UE4 if you use the store. This has gotten some developers immediately on board, as well as delaying their releases to other stores by upwards of 1 year. And yet...
2: Steam has a larger market share
A smaller cut is a nice thought... but it ignores the current user base.
What's more important:
Making more money per sale, but having a significantly smaller user base.
or
Making less per sale, but access to a much, much larger user base?
Fast food sells at a loss, but their volume makes up for it. Putting something on a new market cause their cut is less comes across as doing it for the money, as opposed to consumer benefit. Plus... what happens if the game doesn't sell well, and the studio can't put it anywhere else...
3: Yet another launcher
One of the reason Steam is accepted is convenience. A single place that keeps everything maintained and accessable. As more developers have wanted to avoid paying a cut, they made their own storefronts: (Uplay, GoG, Origin, Stardock, Bethesda Net, Bilzzard Launcher, Arc games, and the myriad of individual games that have their own launcher). From a consumer standpoint... this is wildly inconvenient.
To put that into perspective, remember the early days of Netflix. They had almost everything. As more studios wanted their own service, they pulled out of Netflix for their own services. This leads to the rather comical situation of "Seasons 1 and 2 are on Netflix, season 3 is on Amazon prime, and season 4 is on Hulu Plus". There's no one stop to get everything, which drives people away from all of them.
I don't want to have to run multiple clients to get everything patched, or maintain multiple friends lists across accounts.
4: Epic themselves
From what I understand, there's no forums to post on, no way to post reviews, no say on anything... as well as security concerns.
There's also the rub of them suspending development of Unreal Tournament in favor of developing the store... and Fortnite.
TL:DR
I applaud the idea, and can see the benefits. But... there is a willful ignorance of potential pitfalls, and a failure to listen to the fans.
...but what do I know? I don't have a phone...
But... I don't think it's as much sunshine as it's being painted as.
First,
Steam does need competition
This is a good thing. Steam is kinda a monolith in this case. Being the dominant force for so long has lead to a rather large level of complacency. Having more competition may force their hand on some things, and could maybe being some developers back
However...
1: Bigger cut does NOT equal more profit
One of the things that's being widely touted about the store is the cut the vendor. takes From what I understand, Steam takes a 30% cut (though a recent announcement changed this to be variable based on total sales), while Epic is touting a 15% cut, and waving royalty fees for using UE4 if you use the store. This has gotten some developers immediately on board, as well as delaying their releases to other stores by upwards of 1 year. And yet...
2: Steam has a larger market share
A smaller cut is a nice thought... but it ignores the current user base.
What's more important:
Making more money per sale, but having a significantly smaller user base.
or
Making less per sale, but access to a much, much larger user base?
Fast food sells at a loss, but their volume makes up for it. Putting something on a new market cause their cut is less comes across as doing it for the money, as opposed to consumer benefit. Plus... what happens if the game doesn't sell well, and the studio can't put it anywhere else...
3: Yet another launcher
One of the reason Steam is accepted is convenience. A single place that keeps everything maintained and accessable. As more developers have wanted to avoid paying a cut, they made their own storefronts: (Uplay, GoG, Origin, Stardock, Bethesda Net, Bilzzard Launcher, Arc games, and the myriad of individual games that have their own launcher). From a consumer standpoint... this is wildly inconvenient.
To put that into perspective, remember the early days of Netflix. They had almost everything. As more studios wanted their own service, they pulled out of Netflix for their own services. This leads to the rather comical situation of "Seasons 1 and 2 are on Netflix, season 3 is on Amazon prime, and season 4 is on Hulu Plus". There's no one stop to get everything, which drives people away from all of them.
I don't want to have to run multiple clients to get everything patched, or maintain multiple friends lists across accounts.
4: Epic themselves
From what I understand, there's no forums to post on, no way to post reviews, no say on anything... as well as security concerns.
There's also the rub of them suspending development of Unreal Tournament in favor of developing the store... and Fortnite.
TL:DR
I applaud the idea, and can see the benefits. But... there is a willful ignorance of potential pitfalls, and a failure to listen to the fans.
...but what do I know? I don't have a phone...
