Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 18:56:
I'll address the rest, but most of your competitors aren't true competitors. Most offer a very limited selection, rather than being everything stores. Most have smaller ambitions. Even with them, Steam has what, 85% of the market, if not more?

If you're selling the same product as another storefront, that makes you a competitor. If you pull your product from Steam because you want people to buy it from your storefront instead, that makes you a competitor. Steam is the market leader because it provides the most value to customers, developers and publishers alike. However, all the other platforms that offer game downloads are still competitors. They just aren't very good ones (except for GOG whose biggest weakness is the lack of AAA support).

For some reason, EGS defenders/Steam critics (the two are basically interchangeable) think that competition can only exist when all the parties involved have equal leverage. That isn't true. Nvidia and Intel have much stronger market positions than AMD but nobody is going to argue that AMD isn't their competition.

Just like the other platforms I mentioned, EGS is a competitor. Also like those platforms, it isn't a strong competitor. Everything Epic is doing right now (giveaways, timed exclusives, $10 coupons) isn't sustainable and doesn't give customers any long-term reasons to choose EGS over Steam. Once Epic decides that EGS actually needs to be profitable, they'll have to change their strategy. Unfortunately, I don't think they have any long-term strategy. If you want to surpass Steam, you need to offer better prices, better selection and better features for customers and developers. Epic doesn't seem interested in doing any of that.

This comment was edited on Jan 5, 2020, 21:57.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jan 5, 2020, 16:48.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 17:17:

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On one hand, it's impossible to release something that competes directly with Steam in features. Steam has a multi-billion dollar, decade-and-a-half head start. EA and Ubisoft did not launch something even remotely comparable, and neither did EGS. To expect this is, frankly, lunacy. It's just not realistic, and if you feel that the industry is better off with a Steam competitor, you have to accept warts and growing pains.

Nobody expected EGS to launch with feature parity to Steam. They expected it to launch with features standard to distribution platforms in 2018. Achievements and cloud saves, for example. That's far from unreasonable.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On the other hand, people probably would accept this, had they not been forced to use it for some games (though I'd wager most of the people complaining never would have purchased any of these games.) It's easier to accept growing pains and warts from something you're choosing to use, rather than something you're forced to use.

The "EGS critics wouldn't have bought those games anyway" claim isn't actually based on any semblance of fact. It's just a convenient deflection from legitimate criticisms about EGS' lackluster feature set, anti-consumer business strategies (i.e. timed exclusives) and limited currency and payment method support.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On to some third hand, but no one would use it. It's frankly stupid to use something inferior for "political" reasons, which is why the handful of rabid AMD fanboys we have here baffle me (it doesn't feel like any Intel fanboys remain, but AMD ones do. They're winning right now, though, because man, are those new chips something else.) EGS would just die if it didn't have a reason for people to use it, and building a reason is costly, risky, and time consuming. A better way to get your user count up is by offering something so compelling that developers come over exclusively. Often, this is done without being announced as such. EGS probably made a mistake by using the term so loudly.

A better way to get your user count up is to provide a valuable service to both developers, publishers AND consumers. EGS doesn't do that. Steam does. That's why developers and publishers choose to use Steamworks and make Steam exclusives without any financial incentive from Valve. It's also why consumers choose to buy games on Steam even when they're available from resellers and other platforms.

The question every company needs to ask itself is "why would customers use my platform instead of Steam?" Epic's answer is "because we don't give them any choice." That's not a good answer.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
And, on some Goro-esque 4th hand, this does lock people in, but it's a necessary evil. And as such, I just don't get why people so happily refer to it as evil, as in, some kind of Omen-esque scheme for putting people into involuntary servitude. To the point that you see outright lies, like "if you don't go exclusive, they won't sell you!" But that roadmap needs to move faster.

Why is it a "necessary" evil? What is it necessary for? Steam has had competitors since its inception. Direct2Drive, Gamefly, Impulse, Gamestop, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, GOG, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, Rockstar Game Store, Windows Store, etc. Plenty of companies have tried challenge Steam with their own digital distribution platforms. They just failed to supplant Steam as market leader. That failure doesn't mean they aren't competitors, however.

Also, the DARQ and Skatebird devs already confirmed that if you don't agree to an exclusivity or giveaway deal, EGS won't sell your game. Exceptions are made for the big, highly-anticipated AAA games like Cyberpunk and Bloodlines 2 but if you're a small indie dev, gg.

I'll address the rest, but most of your competitors aren't true competitors. Most offer a very limited selection, rather than being everything stores. Most have smaller ambitions. Even with them, Steam has what, 85% of the market, if not more?

MattyC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 19:47:

Prez wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 09:22:
Valve was breaking new ground when they launched Steam and thus there was no model to follow. They were basically making things up as they went along and fighting whatever fires popped up as they came.

I would think that goes both ways. Steam had no competition and thus nothing to compare it with. We knew it was a complete shit show, but there was nothing to point and say "why didn't they do it like <X>." Steam in 2004 was a large soft opening for Valve. It wasn't a sales platform yet. It was just a buggy mess, forced on people to not just get HL2, but to continue to play HL1. It didn't become a real digital storefront right away.


At any rate, Steam did have issues on things that you could compare. We had server browsers, chat clients, and friend trackers. They worked, but Steam's sure didn't. It didn't just not work at launch either, it didn't work for years.


Steam is my preferred store and I can't see that changing anytime soon. People do, however, need to take off the coke bottle rose tints they seem to don whenever they look Steam's way.

If I ignored Steam and hated on it from the start until 7 years later, what makes you think I'll excuse away Epic's problems? Its current year bro, not 2003.

Out the door they're insulting their customers as toxic gamers and saying their real customers are the game devs/publishers. You've just opened up a new middle man digital retail store, pop quiz hot shot, what do you do? You don't insult your actual customers and call your suppliers your only real customers. Its not 2003 or 1994. I don't even need forums or reviews or silly achievements. Cloud saves and a shopping cart might be nice though. Not some slapdash, hope the mutliplayer integration works, no customer support, download games multiple times until they just let you download it on uplay and run it from there only, one game at a time work in progress insanity. All along with exclusive access (sometimes 2 weeks in advance of launch) and a price monopoly.

They're lucky they've got me for 2 games, a total of $25 spent.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On one hand, it's impossible to release something that competes directly with Steam in features. Steam has a multi-billion dollar, decade-and-a-half head start. EA and Ubisoft did not launch something even remotely comparable, and neither did EGS. To expect this is, frankly, lunacy. It's just not realistic, and if you feel that the industry is better off with a Steam competitor, you have to accept warts and growing pains.

Nobody expected EGS to launch with feature parity to Steam. They expected it to launch with features standard to distribution platforms in 2018. Achievements and cloud saves, for example. That's far from unreasonable.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On the other hand, people probably would accept this, had they not been forced to use it for some games (though I'd wager most of the people complaining never would have purchased any of these games.) It's easier to accept growing pains and warts from something you're choosing to use, rather than something you're forced to use.

The "EGS critics wouldn't have bought those games anyway" claim isn't actually based on any semblance of fact. It's just a convenient deflection from legitimate criticisms about EGS' lackluster feature set, anti-consumer business strategies (i.e. timed exclusives) and limited currency and payment method support.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On to some third hand, but no one would use it. It's frankly stupid to use something inferior for "political" reasons, which is why the handful of rabid AMD fanboys we have here baffle me (it doesn't feel like any Intel fanboys remain, but AMD ones do. They're winning right now, though, because man, are those new chips something else.) EGS would just die if it didn't have a reason for people to use it, and building a reason is costly, risky, and time consuming. A better way to get your user count up is by offering something so compelling that developers come over exclusively. Often, this is done without being announced as such. EGS probably made a mistake by using the term so loudly.

A better way to get your user count up is to provide a valuable service to both developers, publishers AND consumers. EGS doesn't do that. Steam does. That's why developers and publishers choose to use Steamworks and make Steam exclusives without any financial incentive from Valve. It's also why consumers choose to buy games on Steam even when they're available from resellers and other platforms.

The question every company needs to ask itself is "why would customers use my platform instead of Steam?" Epic's answer is "because we don't give them any choice." That's not a good answer.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
And, on some Goro-esque 4th hand, this does lock people in, but it's a necessary evil. And as such, I just don't get why people so happily refer to it as evil, as in, some kind of Omen-esque scheme for putting people into involuntary servitude. To the point that you see outright lies, like "if you don't go exclusive, they won't sell you!" But that roadmap needs to move faster.

Why is it a "necessary" evil? What is it necessary for? Steam has had competitors since its inception. Direct2Drive, Gamefly, Impulse, Gamestop, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, GOG, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, Rockstar Game Store, Windows Store, etc. Plenty of companies have tried challenge Steam with their own digital distribution platforms. They just failed to supplant Steam as market leader. That failure doesn't mean they aren't competitors, however.

Also, the DARQ and Skatebird devs already confirmed that if you don't agree to an exclusivity or giveaway deal, EGS won't sell your game. Exceptions are made for the big, highly-anticipated AAA games like Cyberpunk and Bloodlines 2 but if you're a small indie dev, gg.

There are a few competing things going on here.

On one hand, it's impossible to release something that competes directly with Steam in features. Steam has a multi-billion dollar, decade-and-a-half head start. EA and Ubisoft did not launch something even remotely comparable, and neither did EGS. To expect this is, frankly, lunacy. It's just not realistic, and if you feel that the industry is better off with a Steam competitor, you have to accept warts and growing pains.

On the other hand, people probably would accept this, had they not been forced to use it for some games (though I'd wager most of the people complaining never would have purchased any of these games.) It's easier to accept growing pains and warts from something you're choosing to use, rather than something you're forced to use.

On to some third hand, but no one would use it. It's frankly stupid to use something inferior for "political" reasons, which is why the handful of rabid AMD fanboys we have here baffle me (it doesn't feel like any Intel fanboys remain, but AMD ones do. They're winning right now, though, because man, are those new chips something else.) EGS would just die if it didn't have a reason for people to use it, and building a reason is costly, risky, and time consuming. A better way to get your user count up is by offering something so compelling that developers come over exclusively. Often, this is done without being announced as such. EGS probably made a mistake by using the term so loudly.

And, on some Goro-esque 4th hand, this does lock people in, but it's a necessary evil. And as such, I just don't get why people so happily refer to it as evil, as in, some kind of Omen-esque scheme for putting people into involuntary servitude. To the point that you see outright lies, like "if you don't go exclusive, they won't sell you!" But that roadmap needs to move faster.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:33:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 21:07:
I was a pretty vehement Steam hater for like all of 2004, but by mid 2005 I had changed my tune.

EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

Exactly.
They have a roadmap and are working on improving the platform. I could give a rats ass about the missing features that I don’t use anyways, but they have plans to add them.

Not sure what the big deal is or why people are so upset about it, but there’s nothing anyone can do about that.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:33:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 21:07:
I was a pretty vehement Steam hater for like all of 2004, but by mid 2005 I had changed my tune.

EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

Again, if EA and Ubisoft can launch digital distribution platforms that were mostly feature complete and at least on par with Steam's feature list, there is zero excuse for the condition EGS launched in and remains in. For everyone making smarmy, passive aggressive comments about Steam users being apologists for the platform there seems to be a lot of apologizing for Epic when there is no excuse for the shoddy state of EGS.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 18:54:
So extrapolating on that, we can find two pieces of data. First, based on the 32,583 total scores on Steam, 97% would put the number of units sold on Steam around 8-9 million. When you consider Steam's entire active monthly of over 100 million, 8-9 million for new Rockstar games is likely a reasonable estimate. However, I've noticed the Steam community tends to be more active contributors to ratings and reviews, so, for the sake of realism, it might be more accurate to adjust the totals to between 4-6 million units.

Epic Games Store = 400K (December)
Steam = 4-6 million (December)

So the conclusion is when people had a real choice between Steam or Epic Games Store, they went Steam. Based on that, it is probably safe to extrapolate that had people had an opportunity between Steam or EGS for Borderlands 3 and Metro Exodus, the simship numbers reveal most would have picked Steam.

Your figures might be a bit generous. As a general rule, I've found that User Reviews x 40 = decent sales figure ballpark. So 32,583 x 40 = ~1.3 million. Not great for a Rockstar game but Red Dead has never been as popular as GTA and the Steam version was delayed an extra month on top of the year-long delay from the original console launch. Even with the delay, the Steam version is selling 3x better than the EGS version. For simultaneous launches, the sales gap will only be bigger.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:45:
I keep saying this on r/pcgaming and for some reason I get downvoted to hell. Why is that?

Several people have already addressed that in this very thread. Here it is again: EGS was launched in December 2018. Steam was launched in September 2003. That's a 15 year difference. In those 15 years, numerous distribution platforms have been launched. PSN, XBL, GOG, Uplay, Origin, etc. Standard features, like cloud saves and achievements, have been established. At launch, EGS lacked all of these features (and still lacks most of them). When Steam launched, it had no precedent. Valve was figuring stuff out on the fly. EGS has plenty of precedent but just ignored it all.

A product or service launched in 2018 is going to be judged by the standards of 2018, not 2003.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:33:
EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

As a consumer, I have no reason to support a shitty platform in the hope that it might one day be worth my money. Epic tries to force loyalty through timed exclusives. That's a scummy business strategy that I won't support.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:33:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 21:07:
I was a pretty vehement Steam hater for like all of 2004, but by mid 2005 I had changed my tune.

EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

Yeah I'd love to see them improve the client soon but I'm not optimistic.
They've decided that's not their path to success.


https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap

There are some really big things in the "Future Development" column instead of the "Up Next" column that I consider required. The current rate they're moving at makes it seem like those are more than a year out.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 21:07:
I was a pretty vehement Steam hater for like all of 2004, but by mid 2005 I had changed my tune.

EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

MattyC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 21:39:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:33:
Rag Doll Kung Fu was the first non-Valve game on Steam... showed up October 2005.

That seems inline with my post. My Steam join date is September 12, 2003 and I wasn't the first or anything.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:33:
Steam server browsers worked just fine right at launch.
Friends list was added 2005ish, hard to find the exact timing.

Steam friends was before 2005, IIRC, but I could be wrong.


The server browser was hot garbage at launch. Sometimes it wouldn't see servers on LAN (other browsers could... you had to manually add it to Steam), it never remembered favorites, filter options were sometimes ignored, it couldn't differentiate (in the early versions anyway) between bots and active users (even though that was a variable that servers readily offered) making those filters worthless, etc. We stuck with stuff like tASE and even Gamespy because Steam's was just bad.

I remember it occasionally forgetting the favorite servers but that seemed to be fixed with restarting or deleting some file or other. I don't remember any of those other issues and didn't post about them here... but I do have a post in 2005 saying that I had completely switched from ASE to Steam for server browsing.

From what I remember the server browser in Steam was pretty much exactly the same as the server browser inside of HL2/CS:S ... so I don't really fault it specifically much for those more advanced filters you were looking for... A server browser isn't a feature I'm looking for in any current platforms though since that concept has kind of died off. Also 3rd party browsers still worked, it was just annoying at the time that once authentication started going through Steam you had to run it before you could launch the game.

I remember I would still use ASE or HLSW long after Steam but only for discoverability at big LAN parties. So like if I was at a 300 person LAN I could pop open HLSW on the LAN tab and see that people were running Battlefield, Q3, CS server whatever.... something that wouldn't be possible through the Steam server browser anyway since it wouldn't have included non-Steam titles.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:33:
Rag Doll Kung Fu was the first non-Valve game on Steam... showed up October 2005.

That seems inline with my post. My Steam join date is September 12, 2003 and I wasn't the first or anything.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:33:
Steam server browsers worked just fine right at launch.
Friends list was added 2005ish, hard to find the exact timing.

Steam friends was before 2005, IIRC, but I could be wrong.


The server browser was hot garbage at launch. Sometimes it wouldn't see servers on LAN (other browsers could... you had to manually add it to Steam), it never remembered favorites, filter options were sometimes ignored, it couldn't differentiate (in the early versions anyway) between bots and active users (even though that was a variable that servers readily offered) making those filters worthless, etc. We stuck with stuff like tASE and even Gamespy because Steam's was just bad.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:58:

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:45:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:49:

Pr()ZaC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:24:
Oh I'm sure that Epic is working its ass off to improve EGS and make sure it'll be competitive with Steam. It won't happen overnight. Even Steam got where it is now update after update.

People seem to conveniently forget what an absolute shitshow Steam was when it first launched.

I keep saying this on r/pcgaming and for some reason I get downvoted to hell. Why is that?

Revisionist history and tribalism: Thou shalt not speak Ill of teh GabeN!

The timeline is way exaggerated.
I was a pretty vehement Steam hater for like all of 2004, but by mid 2005 I had changed my tune.
They were already selling and distributing 3rd party titles and had the friends list implemented by then.
Not much shitshow at that point.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:45:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:49:

Pr()ZaC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:24:
Oh I'm sure that Epic is working its ass off to improve EGS and make sure it'll be competitive with Steam. It won't happen overnight. Even Steam got where it is now update after update.

People seem to conveniently forget what an absolute shitshow Steam was when it first launched.

I keep saying this on r/pcgaming and for some reason I get downvoted to hell. Why is that?

Revisionist history and tribalism: Thou shalt not speak Ill of teh GabeN!

MattyC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 19:47:
Steam is my preferred store and I can't see that changing anytime soon. People do, however, need to take off the coke bottle rose tints they seem to don whenever they look Steam's way.

I will buy from Steam ONLY if it's not available anywhere else.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:49:

Pr()ZaC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:24:
Oh I'm sure that Epic is working its ass off to improve EGS and make sure it'll be competitive with Steam. It won't happen overnight. Even Steam got where it is now update after update.

People seem to conveniently forget what an absolute shitshow Steam was when it first launched.

I keep saying this on r/pcgaming and for some reason I get downvoted to hell. Why is that?

MattyC wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 19:47:

Prez wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 09:22:
Valve was breaking new ground when they launched Steam and thus there was no model to follow. They were basically making things up as they went along and fighting whatever fires popped up as they came.

I would think that goes both ways. Steam had no competition and thus nothing to compare it with. We knew it was a complete shit show, but there was nothing to point and say "why didn't they do it like <X>." Steam in 2004 was a large soft opening for Valve. It wasn't a sales platform yet. It was just a buggy mess, forced on people to not just get HL2, but to continue to play HL1. It didn't become a real digital storefront right away.


At any rate, Steam did have issues on things that you could compare. We had server browsers, chat clients, and friend trackers. They worked, but Steam's sure didn't. It didn't just not work at launch either, it didn't work for years.


Steam is my preferred store and I can't see that changing anytime soon. People do, however, need to take off the coke bottle rose tints they seem to don whenever they look Steam's way.

Rag Doll Kung Fu was the first non-Valve game on Steam... showed up October 2005.

Steam server browsers worked just fine right at launch.
Friends list was added 2005ish, hard to find the exact timing.

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 2020, 20:53.

Prez wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 09:22:
Valve was breaking new ground when they launched Steam and thus there was no model to follow. They were basically making things up as they went along and fighting whatever fires popped up as they came.

I would think that goes both ways. Steam had no competition and thus nothing to compare it with. We knew it was a complete shit show, but there was nothing to point and say "why didn't they do it like <X>." Steam in 2004 was a large soft opening for Valve. It wasn't a sales platform yet. It was just a buggy mess, forced on people to not just get HL2, but to continue to play HL1. It didn't become a real digital storefront right away.


At any rate, Steam did have issues on things that you could compare. We had server browsers, chat clients, and friend trackers. They worked, but Steam's sure didn't. It didn't just not work at launch either, it didn't work for years.


Steam is my preferred store and I can't see that changing anytime soon. People do, however, need to take off the coke bottle rose tints they seem to don whenever they look Steam's way.