this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
436 points (98.4% liked)
PC Gaming
8660 readers
709 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All Epic had to do was build a good store front with similar features as Steam provides. They didn’t. Their store sucked from the beginning and it also blows now. Relying purely on exclusives and freebies was a losing game - they needed to back it up by making the service worthwhile beyond that, and they utterly failed to do so.
Assuming that a company could hope to achieve a store front with similar features in a few years instead of the 21 that steam had, why would anyone migrate there?
A. The technological landscape is very different today than it was 21 years ago. Many other companies have launched a better copy of Steam - including Ubisoft themselves. People didn't like when Ubisoft and EA did it because they tried forced exclusivity, like Epic, and couldn't offer anything beyond their own games. And you couldn't even sync friends between the 3, needlessly splitting your friends between different platforms. GoG has been doing fine for years now.
B. Maybe if Epic had provided basic stuff like a shopping cart - you know, a basic feature that you can find on any webhost service's website maker - instead of paying companies for forced exclusivity, maybe people would've been more willing to give it a chance.
Forced exclusivity put them on a bad start. The lack of basic features that were standardized for online storefronts 25 years ago killed any chance they had to gain any kind of traction. And the series of bad decisions following guaranteed that they never would have a good reputation. Remember when they had a sale on unreleased games without asking the devs of those games?
I agree that forced exclusivity is bad. I absolutely disagree with your statement that ubisoft store was better than steam, I don't even understand how you can say something like that. But yes, without the games any store is worthless.
You didn't respond to my question though, so I'll repeat it: even if someone was able to launch a product with feature parity to steam, why would anyone migrate?
I didn't mean that Ubisoft's was better than Steam - just better than Epic's store when comparing both against Steam. I hated the uPlay store as much as everyone else.
As for your question, once you have feature parity, it becomes about finding a niche. GoG has its list of old games and lack DRM going for it, for example. Nobody is going to pull large groups of people from Steam immediately without some major draw, obviously, but if you offer a similar service that doesn't exclude people on other platforms like Steam from playing games with people on your own platform, then people will be drawn to whichever they like better.
The big reason I think we don't see any real competition for Steam is that the companies with the funding to do so all wanted to force a piece of the pie rather than actually compete with Steam on quality of service. If EA, Ubisoft, and Epic had tried that, we would probably have a much more diverse ecosystem of storefronts - especially with crossplay becoming common. As it stands, Steam's biggest competitors are the consoles, and that's largely down to hardware preference rather than storefront/launcher preference.
Steam has so much impetus now that competing with them is very difficult, but as I saw somebody else in here say, if Epic had done something like offer their lower take from devs on sales at the agreement of a 5% lower price on their platform instead of spending all that money on forced exclusivity, people would have a real reason to go there instead of Steam (if the quality of service were comparable).
"Forced exclusivity is bad" is an angle that has always baffled me a little, because some of its proponents seem to also be going "what exclusives does the Xbox have" like two posts down the road.
Or maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember where the "I will never buy anything on Epic because they pay for exclusives" was instead "Square has betrayed its customers by moving to the PlayStation" (or, you know, Konami for having Xbox ports).
Gaming opinions are weird, and get weirder if you track them over time.
That wasn't the question, the question was "Given they're provided the same set of features, why would anyone migrate?"
I suppose those exclusives and freebies were the reason. I think they needed to do all the things and blew the opportunity. If it was a company with shit for funding I might have more pity but Epic definitely had the budget to do more.