Epic Games Store title exclusivity: Are the PR headaches worth it?

By Jez Corden
last updated

The Epic Games Store has been making waves, often for the wrong reasons. Here's how Epic's push into distribution has been creating headaches.

Epic Games Store
Epic Games Store (Image credit: Windows Central)

Competition is important. Not only does it drive innovation, it also helps keep consumer costs down, as competitors seek to undercut each other. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. In practice, things don't always turn out that way.

Windows is by far the operating system of choice for desktop PC gaming, and Steam has long been the preferred distributor of PC games. Despite its virtual monopoly over all things PC gaming, Steam is famed for its aggressive sales, huge library of content, and large feature set. From social features to developer tools, mods, and VR, Steam is very far out in front of all of its competitors, and none really had the clout to compete in any credible sort of way. Until now.

Epic Games, armed with coffers full of Fortnite cash, burst onto the scene and announced a generous 88 percent revenue cut for developers, beating Steam's own offering. While that won Epic some initial praise, some of its recent actions have soured relations between itself and many core PC gaming communities.

Encouraging devs to break promises

Metro Exodus was on its way to Steam... then it wasn't.

Metro Exodus was on its way to Steam... then it wasn't.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of Epic Games' attempts to dethrone Steam is in its use of exclusivity deals, often with fairly high-profile games that were previously announced for other platforms. 4A Games' popular Metro series has been a staple of Steam for years, and enjoys a strong cult following on PC. After taking pre-orders from Steam for several months, 4A Games' publisher Koch Media revealed that Metro Exodus would be an Epic Games Store exclusive, and that at least for the foreseeable future, it would be unavailable on Steam.

Naturally, fans reacted poorly, leading to some heated comments from some Metro Exodus developers, forcing Koch Media / Deep Silver to release a statement, asking fans to redirect "valid feedback" at them, rather than at developers. This isn't the only statement developers have had to issue to downplay the bait and switch nature of these deals.

Upcoming (rather awesome-looking) factory-building simulator Satisfactory was revealed as an Epic Games Store exclusive, despite garnering a large following on Steam as it moved towards early access. Satisfactory unceremoniously vanished from Steam before jumping onto Epic Games, leading to widespread confusion amongst the game's fanbase. Coffee Stain issued similar statements regarding the way things had been handled, noting that the situation was "frustrating" in the above video.

Another recent high-profile bait and switch comes from Phoenix Point, which is an upcoming XCOM-style tactical game from the original XCOM creator. Phoenix Point was crowdfunded, with promises of a Steam version to backers. For those who paid for the game in good faith, upfront, the broken promise has led to a huge wave of refund requests on crowdfunding platform Fig, and a whole load of discontent on the fledgling game's subreddit. Lead designer Julian Gollop issued this comment in response to some of the criticism.

For the inconvenience of pressing button B instead of button A to launch your game, we made a deal that helps us get over the finishing line without my staff wondering whether they will have a job at the end of it. I still think the offer of a year's worth of free DLC, plus a Steam/GoG key at the end of [the 1-year exclusivity period], is a good deal for the inconvenience caused. Unfortunately I can't please everyone, and I regret that we were just not in a position to consult our backers over this move. However, this is where we are, and we will continue to develop the game to the maximum of our ability.

Ultimately, therein lies the bottom line. While larger publishers might have competitive reason for wanting to support Epic Games over Steam (to attempt to force Steam to adopt a more generous developer revenue cut), many of the smaller publishers and developers accepting Epic Games' money is very much a case of literally helping to keep the lights on.

Still an underdog, or is it?

Epic Games Store

Epic Games Store (Image credit: Epic Games)

Simply put, Epic Games is asking some of the indies to choose between financial peace of mind or upsetting core fans. When you have bills to pay, it's a pretty easy decision in my view, but it sucks that Epic is forcing developers to make this sort of choice after having already made promises to fans. Microsoft was bombarded with criticism for its timed-exclusivity deal with Rise of the Tomb Raider, leading Redmond to denounce the practice. Since then, any studios it has purchased have committed to honouring their commitments to platforms they have promised games to, including a PS4 version for We Happy Few from Compulsion and Wasteland 3 from inXile. Difference being, Microsoft already has an established presence in the industry, whereas Epic is trying to buy its way in.

See more

With Google poised to deliver its own streaming platform, a resurgent Nintendo on the up and up, with TenCent and likely Amazon waiting in the wings to deliver something similar, the competition for gamer's time and attention has never been more aggressive. Truth be told, Epic Games is a total underdog, with Steam clocking in 47 million daily active users as of January 2019.

A bigger revenue share for developers and creators is an admirable goal, if it is indeed the goal.

It doesn't have a large console platform to leverage like Sony and Microsoft, it doesn't have native control of any operating systems like Windows or Google and TenCent's Android stores, and it doesn't have a bustling social platform, like Discord, YouTube, or Twitch. Epic Games' window of opportunity to get into the space is shrinking fast, particularly when you consider that Apex Legends is eating into Fortnite's dominance as the go-to free-to-play shooter, diminishing Epic Games' wide audience exposure on streaming platforms.

A bigger revenue share for developers and creators is an admirable goal, if it is indeed the goal, and not simply a gimmick that will gradually go away as Epic's store scales in size and complexity. Only time will tell if that aspect is true, and Epic has already made itself questionable in regards to trust, considering it was caught scraping Steam data without your permission. The company claims that your Steam data is only stored locally, though it's still an odd, invasive practice. Epic has also had to field rebuttals to claims that it is somehow compromised owing to megacorp TenCent's investment in the company, whose data is potentially at the mercy of the Chinese regime.

Do most people care?

It's hard to really pin down what Epic Games' true motivations are for getting into distribution, beyond cold hard cash. Being able to control more of the pipeline for developers using its popular Unreal Engine would obviously be lucrative, but like Sweeney himself notes, there really isn't any room for digital storefronts to actually get better at what they do. Epic is on record as saying exclusives are the only way it can force a more competitive rate for developers onto other storefronts, effectively cornering itself into a place where it can't adjust its rates in favour of itself without being accused of hypocrisy.

"[The storefront model is] nearly perfect for consumers already... There is no hope of displacing a dominant storefront solely by adding marginally more store features or a marginally better install experience. These battles will be won on the basis of game supply, consumer prices, and developer revenue sharing."

As admirable as it is for Epic to push for a better revenue split for developers, the aggressive, bullish way the company has pursued its place in an increasingly busy PC games market has not only put developers in a difficult position, it could lead to bigger headaches down the line with PC platform fragmentation. What if DLC for a game you already own on Steam becomes exclusive to Epic Games Store? As we've seen with some Destiny content being exclusive to PlayStation on consoles. Will multiplayer games play nice between Epic Games and Steam? What about PC games on Steam with Xbox Live integration? If Epic Games' store gets really big, will they continue to offer this generous revenue split? Will they restrict cross-play to hurt competitors? And so on.

In spite of all the drama, at GDC, Epic Games noted that Metro Exodus has already beaten previous game Metro Last Light's Steam sales by two and a half times over the same period. Perhaps the simple truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't really care which launcher they use, as long as it performs the basics.

Regardless, I don't think anyone would alienate Epic Games of its right to compete in the Windows PC ecosystem, but the way it has been operating so far isn't exactly encouraging so far. What do you think?

Jez Corden
Jez Corden
Co-Managing Editor

Jez Corden a Managing Editor at Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by caffeine. Follow on Twitter @JezCorden and listen to his Xbox Two podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!

48 Comments
  • Competition is great, when it works, but when users who pay for a title on their store of choice, lose that ability because developers, publishers, etc. change their distribution plans that is what bugs me. I for one do not like installing numerous stores/launchers on my PC, and exclusives need to be pushed out of gaming, and not praised by company CEOs. I will continue to not install Epic Games store on my PC, even if it means that I do not get to play a game that I've wanted to play.
  • Yes, this. As a customer I have no loyalty to any company. If you won't provide what I want, or choose to inconvenience me, I simply won't buy your product. I don't care if you have to pay Steam a higher fee, it's my game service of choice. I will wait for these games to come to Steam or I won't buy them. If someone else wants to use Epic store, great for them. I have no interest in it. Also if you wait a year to come to Steam, I expect it to be priced like a year old game, not a new game.
  • Absolutely agreed. And I will NEVER EVER support an anti-competitive, anti-consumer store like Epic. And consumer price? What a bloody joke. Last I checked, the prices on Epic Games are either on par or more expensive than on steam in my country, Singapore.
  • I wouldn't mind if the epic launcher was good. It's streats behind steam. The new obsideon game not coming to steam for a year is really annoying, especially considering that the master chief collection is. I understand where epic is coming from for their business strategy but pr counts for something. They haven't offered the actual people that buy the games any incentive to leave steam other then keeping the games away from you. Capitalism is companies competing to offer better deals for consumers. This is more like EA nabbing exclusivity rights to the NFL in order to not compete with the 2k football games.
  • Hey EPIC as a steam user origin user Ubisoft user Blizzard user guess what I DONT WANT ANOTHER DAM LAUNCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Easily solved. Go to Add and Remove Programs and uninstall Ubisoft and Blizzard launchers. Now you have two spaces for launchers and one could be Epics. Not like Blizzard is giving you anything new and interesting anyway.
  • I find all those extremely annoying, especially how they just add more overhead to computers taxing the system they run on...
  • Not really. There's no reason to be running any launchers when you aren't playing a game they require, so adding more doesn't add any overhead. Unless you're talking about the space they take up on disk which is miniscule in terms of modern HD/SSD sizes.
  • Someone needs to come in and pull a Disney with their "Movies Anywhere" approach. Buy the game from the distributor of your choice, but download it anywhere. I know full well the comparison isn't one to one, but honestly, that's the only way you won't start angering gamers.
  • Problem with this is that there are far more game publishers than there are movie studios. Disney may have had to get around ten studios on board with them, but it will be a far more daunting task if anyone tried the same with video games.
  • Thank you I completely agree. Launch box is the closest to this dream.
  • Funnily enough that's exactly what the founder of Epic has suggested.
  • > As admirable as it is for Epic to push for a better revenue split for developers, With the exception of self-published indies, isn't it the case that any extra revenue from Epic's smaller cut goes almost entirely to the publisher, not the developer?
  • Well that depends on the terms the dev has raised with the publisher. Not every deal is the same.
  • What I find hilarious is its actually the PC gamer him or herself that is putting up the barrier. A PC Gamer can buy whatever they want or don't want. But the fact is, it's the PC Gamer who is making the decision whether to buy from a particular storefront. And that's not the same as a game being exclusive to a piece of hardware someone doesnt currently own. They have the hardware and all means to play the game from the Epic store. They just choose not to. As I said it's entirely their choice. But without realizing it they themselves are the barrier. It's totally different than an exclusive on console. A Console gamer has to specifically go out and purchase new hardware to play an exclusive not on his or her current system. Metro Exodus has apparantly sold 2.5x any Metro game on Steam has at this point in its launch. So I don't think Epic will give a sh*t what some moaning internet babies will say. I'm just finding it all rather funny. They can actually buy and play it. But choose not to. Hahahahahah
  • This is EXACTLY what I was thinking! I think the problem with all the buzz around Epic x Steam, is that we are only looking to the vocal minority,
    people who are satisfied with the current situation just don't give a **** and will just buy the games they want when/where they want.
  • Simple question what happens if Epic store closes tomorrow. Do you think your game will work after that? The chance of steam going bust not likely but epic is throwing money around and is losing market share like mad with its main game Foughnight. So to say hey were all wingeing and there are no issues around there store your living yourself in cloud cookoo land.
    Epic is doing nothing except upsetting consumers money walks then no game you paid good money for so who loses out the consumer!
  • No one will know if Epic will crash (but they've earned sooo much cause of FN and they now have Tencents' money. Royalty of Epic Engine becomes so cheap because of that), and if Epic actually crashed... you get to DL everything you own right? ps: I think a lotta people will be interested in buying Epic if Epic crashed.
  • Well, there are tons of other games to buy from other services that are on par in the mean time, it's not like we have to buy everything at launch, or everything at all. As for Exodus A) that actually includes Exodus Steam preorder numbers, we don't know the split, B) we don't know exactly what of Last Light sales it includes in the comparison, all of them, Redux, Steam only or with all other retailers with or without Steam keys , C) Last Light actually also sold that much more than the original 2033 game itself so it's standard franchise growth for the series it seems, D) Exodus is a pretty damn big leap for the franchise and essentially its turning into AAA point, just like The Witcher 3 sold a ton more than previous games in the series which like previous Metro games were lower budget jankier affairs of an acquired taste. Heck, just the fact they only praised that one game's sales, without even explaining the details or giving actual numbers, should tell you how the rest games are doing. Games that could have been indie hits on Steam, like Ashen which could have been a 3D Hollow Knight level of success, traded the risk of failure for some up front money from Epic and where exactly do they go from here? Will Epic become their overlord and pay for every game of theirs from now on, are they no longer indies and essentially just work for Epic rather than themselves now, so that Epic can get Ashen's mindshare even if people don't actually play the games as long as they can get some media attention for it? And what happens when they stop paying, how many will be interested n Ashen 2 or 3 if the last games never reached the intended audience they were originally devised for? Well, any dev is free to choose their own path, so long as they acknowledge it and its implications, you can't have your cake and eat it. But sure, keep chugging that Epic PR Kool-Aid without any critical thought over it. People are critical of Epic just like they were critical of UPlay's early days and of the Windows Store and any other sub par effort, but then somehow that was okay but it's bad form to criticize Epic? I guess the difference is that Epic is now throwing their infinite Fortnite money left and right to quell most negative discussions and prop themselves up. Hell, even positive Steam news are being reported as "in response to Epic" by the various paid off media, as if the new features Valve is introducing weren't being worked on at their usual Valve time and likely before Epic's store was even announced, never mind launched. But yeah we can't even say something positive about Steam these days without including and praising Epic, lol. Suddenly Steam, which we actually all helped shape together, Valve, the gamers, the developers, the publishers and the relevant press, from its initial clunky but pioneering state to the de facto platform everyone wants to bite into these days, from an era with strict curation where only proven publishers could get in, to the era of greenlight to allow indies to find a home on it without going to a publisher first, to the current era because even greenlight was criticized for the indie gems that couldn't still get in on the fabled Steam market share, and now that we all shaped it together and can continue to do so, it's apparently the bane of PC gaming, lol. Never mind the media not doing their job to highlight worthwhile games and instead making useless clickbait articles with lists of crappy games, as if they're so hard to ignore and scroll past, like they can't use the freaking internet properly, and we trust them with getting informed about this industry? Never mind Steam saved said PC gaming in its darkest era where it had no retail presence and only hardcore PC genres left (strategy games, MMORPGS and the like) while the consoles got all the AAA efforts exclusively and the likes of Epic had abandoned it due to so called pirates (meh, Microsoft money at the time really, lol) and brought it to the forefront of the industry as we get pretty much everything now like back in the good old days, from AAA titles to indies who have a means to get to us and hell, even better than in the past as Japanese developers are now onboard too so we enjoy our Final Fantasies and our Dark Souls and Devil May Cries and Resident Evils with top class rather than half baked ports. But sure, let's just all prop Epic up until they decide PC is not worth the hassle again. Hell, they're already not even making customers their priority in any way, pretty much none of their features are for us, just to claim they're doing it for the devs, by providing no features to speak of which in turn allows them to have the lower fee, a fee they've admitted isn't sustainable on its own in the long run, so clearly a fee Steam can't match unless they cut 90% of their features. And it's not like Valve don't have the money to buy exclusives, they simply chose not to and hopefully they stick with their principles rather than follow Epic's example just because vocal and otherwise paid minorities prop them up as working strategies rather than the bs they are. Epic knows their features aren't good enough so their only way to attract developers is to go for those that are in financial risk and pay them off, turning indies into their pawns pretending it's for their own good. True competition from Epic would be a client on par with Steam, features as wide and deep as Steam, and the lower fee that would allow developers to sell their games cheaper on Epic than on Steam for the same exact profit, then we'd see what gamers really preferred and where developers benefitted the most. As if Epic's gonna pay all great indies out there, they aren't even gonna care for any that won't have mindshare to offer in return, while Steam gives every one of them a platform to make the most of, and is bashed for it because this or that game failed, as if having a store means you have to guarantee success to everybody on it, lol. Epic could have gone to their PC roots and done things right, offer customers quality, developers convenience, throw in Fortnite collaborations like Valve did with TF2 hats and such in its time, include all third party resellers a developer/publisher may wish to use, rather than just humble bundle, and we'd all be rooting for them to do well and give Steam actual competition. There's no competition Steam can respond to here beyond paying for exclusives, nothing else that Epic does is something to match by improving Steam, and, again, hopefully they won't take that stance.
  • All that. And yet it still is the PC Gamer with the barrier. Nothing at all is stopping him or her buying the game. Hardware is no issue. It's not a streaming service. It's just that the PC Gamer chooses not to walk into one Iine shop. In favor of another Online shop. I find that funny as hell.
  • You're correct. I feel like it's more of a on principle stance, though. Obviously no actual barrier exists, I just think some people would rather not play a game than support shady business first consumer last practices. So, it's not a walled garden or anything, but enough people are upset by it that it continues to be a huge story in the gaming community and Epic can shout from the mountaintops about how many copies of Exodus they sold, but the truth is that most people didnt discover Metro until 3 years after Last Light was released. So, It may have sold much better on Steam. I mean, look at Anthem. Anthem has been the top selling game since release, and has sold many times as many copies as Metro Exodus has, yet many in the gaming community are suggesting EA may shut down BioWare because the game "flopped." So, in and of itself there's no real evidence that this has been a success for any devs and publishers who have chosen Epic, and I honestly hope they do fail and learn their lesson about PC gamers. It's the same mistake Blizzard made with Diablo on mobile being their big and only announcement at Blizzcon. They didn't anticipate the wave of backlash would actually hurt them even though they utterly failed from a PR perspective, just as Epic is now. We'll see long term how viable their strategy is, I just don't think it will be, and hope it does fail so consumers and their choices will come first, well ahead of developers and publishers, as it should be.
  • Imagine that Microsoft made it that you could only use their websites through the Edge Browser, or if Google did the same for Chrome. Sure, you can just download their browsers, they're freely available. But why? How exactly does it benefit me that I don't get to choose how I access my websites? They're holding the websites hostage, in essence. This same scenario applies quite well to the current situation with game launchers on PC.
  • Your web browser analogy is already a reality. Websites are built for Chrome first and foremost and it's not unusual to run into websites that behave weirdly because you aren't using Chrome (we've come full circle to the Internet Explorer 6 days except Google is the one setting up their own personal standards of how we access the web). Back to storefronts, Steam has a virtual monopoly on PC Gaming. Complaining that some games are on other storefronts exclusively is to completely ignore the plethora of games that you can only get on Steam. I use Steam, but prefer GoG as it's the closest I can get to old school PC gaming. However, I have to go through Steam if I want to play certain games and that's that. People keep turning this into an argument that Epic Games is wrong to buy exclusivity because their launcher and services aren't as nice (nothing wrong with wanting the service to improve) but at the end of the day, devs chose to go where they could potentially make more money while not doing anything that could truly cut out anyone who sincerely wants to buy and play their games. TLDR Without requiring you to buy new hardware, it's hard to claim unfair business practice if all you care about is playing the game and it's just an additional download away. However, customers should be asking Epic to improve their store to make this pill a bit easier to swallow.
  • I don't have strong feelings about this whole discussion either way but I will point out what I think is a flaw in your argument. yes, there are games that are exclusive to Steam but, as far as I'm aware, that's not because Steam won't let them but rather that they just choose not to because there would be little financial advantage to doing so. Epic is specifically trying to prevent games being released on rival stores. That's their prerogative but they should not then be surprised that gamers may get upset about it.
  • I get where your coming from, however, unfortunately some Devs will never choose to go without DRM, which in and of itself is shady, IMO, but we lost that battle long ago. Had we been more ready to not buy those games in the moment and acted more like people are with Epic en masse, more games may be installable solo with no launcher and no terms that limit our use. The problem is that not everyone just wants to play the game. They also want to chat with their friends, join their games quickly and easily (say from an integrated friends list or messenger) they dont wanna have to install shady software that scrapes their other software's data, they dont want their accounts and passwords to be easily brute forced. I mean, the issues are numerous. If it was just about the game, yeah, then it wouldn't really matter. However, consumers now are buying the experience, especially in gaming or other media. How it is presented matters just as much as how good it is in the moment. You also have to think about the factor that these companies have by and large lied to their fans. Had it been announced from day one of development that these games would be Epic only, you wouldn't see as much fallout. The problem with a lot of these games that owes to the nature of how recently epic launched their service, and this will diminish if epic makes it longer term, is that most of these games announced on steam. They built communities on steam. They created hype on steam. And then in some cases just days before launch, they announced they didn't want anything to do with steam or the communties there, and it feels like theyre leaving you behind. On steam it feels like you have a relationship in a sense with developers. You participate in their forums and communties, and on epic that infrastructure doesn't exist. There is no feedback through the launcher, or community. Im sure some will have forums on their sites, but it feels more cut off and like they chose the money over the community and the people.
  • add: besides "websites are built for Chrome 1st", Google sabotage other browsers' performance with wacky hacks too. Google has Gmail, YouTube and AdSense is on every websites.
  • This could be the case if they didn't require you to run more software on your PC. When I have so many store fronts installed that it starts to degrade my gaming performance that's bad for the gamer.
  • This! Absolutely this, yes 😅
  • Yes, exactly. The way this is being compared to console exclusivity is ridiculous. It's just a launcher, that isn't a meaningful barrier to entry. PC users have already had to install numerous first party launchers for years anyway. Besides, it's not like Steam is actually that great anyway, it's still lacking feature users have requested for years. Where's the ability to pause updates for a specific game, or download an old version? GOG has both. As for people defending Steam's "consumer friendliness", where's the ability to resell second hand games, something Valve lost a court case over in the EU but still hasn't implemented?
  • "Perhaps the most frustrating part of Epic Games' attempts to dethrone Steam is in its use of exclusivity deals, often with fairly high-profile games that were previously announced for other platforms." Wait the last time I checked MCC is not coming to Epic or GOG only Steam what BS is that? /s (don't really care one way or the other - see my other comment below) Isn't that bad PR for Steam and Microsoft? Double standard? Why is Microsoft picking winners and losers? Some kind of backroom deal going on here? All sounds quite fishy. Maybe we should call out MS and Steam with this exclusive deal. It would be a little hypocritical to think this was acceptable practice by Microsoft and Steam but somehow other publishers doing similar deals with Epic is wrong. "Encouraging publishers to break promises"
    Please... and this coming from a site dealing with primarily Microsoft news. You should know better about promises. If promises were a legal and binding contract and not made of salty tears when actually broken then Microsoft would be locked up for life for all the promises they have broken to users and developers over the years.
  • You see, the reason why Microsoft has declined to exclusively release their games on Epic (I'm sure you would just love to see that happen) is that they're not dying to get their hands on 1 or 2 million dollars. They're a multibillion dollar company that far out-values Epic and are financially free to make their own decisions.
  • The article does mention that Steam provides Xbox Live integration. Given that the MCC is currently an Xbox exclusive, I would expect that Xbox Live integration for the PC version is a must. If Steam is the only PC storefront other than the Microsoft Store to support it then it makes perfect sense that the MCC would only be available on those two storefronts. I think your argument probably on that score fails.
  • MS's current focus / priority is to grow Xbox Live and Xbox ecosystem's DAU/MAU. Money isn't their concern. ps: If you own MCC, and you own a phone... and if there's a way for you to play MCC on the go on your phone, would you like to try it? Why wouldn't you want to utilize your purchase?
    If your friends are play MCC on their phone, on a low specs or arm64 notebook in a coffee... would you want to join? Wouldn't they ask you if you like to join?
    First MCC, then other games, the more games or contents you buy, the more saves you generates, the harder you seek somewhere else right?
    Steam vs Epic, Facebook vs G+, AppStote vs PlayStore vs WinPhone Store, WhatsApp vs Line, the same story.
  • All so easily answered: No most people don't care.
  • I will never switch to Epic-Tencent. Never going to happen. If there are no new pc games in Steam I will move on to the cloud solutions of Microsoft xcloud or Google Stadia. They will work in pc too. Traditional pc gaming in the hands of Tencent = game over for me.
  • A common misconception is that Tencent is a purely mobile games' developer. That is untrue as they offer plenty of PC experiences... in China. That said, Tencent is an enormous company that has its hands in everything from search engines to video streaming to ebook publishing, etc. Being uncomfortable that they'll have potential access to your data is definitely a valid concern that many gamers share.
  • In your article, you mention that sales of Metro Exodus have more than doubled compared to that of the previous game. However this figure, I believe, takes into account Steam pre-orders and physical sales as well. In such a case, this would not necessarily indicate that people are flocking to Epic Games Launcher.
  • Epic: Hey, is Epic store doing any good for your business?
    Deep Silver: Yes (and silently add the numbers DS got from Steam preorders), thanks to Epic Store we earned more than double!
  • Maybe it's because I don't use any of the ancillary stuff that Steam has like trading cards or the social features, but I don't really care. I already have Steam, Origin, GOG, and Blizzard launchers. I just open the launcher and open my game. I don't really see what the difference is if I launch Steam or Epic before playing the game. I get why people would prefer it all to be in one place for convenience, but if there is a game I really want to play, I'm not going to let the storefront be the reason why I don't get that game.
  • It's sad I really wanted to play the new metro game and now they are trying to force me to buy it on another store... Nope not gonna happen. I have Steam, GoG, origin, and uplay. That is way too many already I am not getting a 5th store on my PC.
  • That's ridiculous how many different stores there are at the moment.
  • It's PC, a open market platform. Every big publisher can open one if they are famous enough / think they can gather enough users.
    The reason everyone has to have a launcher is to prevent piracy imo. Adobe has it's own publish distribution network. Autodesk has theirs.
  • Compared with exclusive, I more concern about trust issue. The article says "it was caught scraping Steam data without your permission". If this is true, I would say no. I sure care about if there's another app always running on my PC, especially if it may also be a spyware.
    Even for games from steam I don't fully trust. I hope Windows could provide "sandbox" for PC games that you don't need to worry that any luncher or game itself do anything bad to your PC, with minimal impact to the performance. If that could be true one day, and Microsoft or whoever provides unified luncher that call all games from other lunchers, I may don't mind which store the game bought from.
  • Is it just me or is Tim a little weird sometimes, like how he'll rant at Microsoft for things and then do something like this and get all daaargh about it..? 👀
  • Am I the only person who doesn't actually open a launcher to play a game? I just run the game and the backend opens itself, so for me it is literally no difference where the game comes from, they all load the same.
  • This is like how these console makers pay for timed exclusivity (at least they aren't saying it'll never come on other store like what they did with Cuphead).
    Time deals is the worst kind of exclusivity for gaming. Instead of investing money to delay a game on another store, why they don't invest it on making more games to make your own store more attractive. Yes, gamers can still play the game on another store, but the second option would be much better for gamers.
  • Most people don't care unfortunately.
    I mean Origin still exists
    in 2019
    and if it weren't for EA making their biggest games exclusive to it, it wouldn't stand a chance.
    lmao
  • "Encouraging devs to break promises"? Seriously, was this article written by a 14 year old? And I see the false information from anonymous Reddit users is still being repeated here as fact, Epic stated very clearly that no Steam data was parsed without the explicit consent of users. As for Microsoft, they have some gaul talking about exclusivity when it comes to Windows 10, what with the UWP situation.