What bugs me is locking stuff in to exclusives while having a half-baked store platform. It'd be one thing if their service was near parity with Steam, but they started doing this while it was missing essential features.

Stuff like cloud sync for game saves or being able to buy games as a gift to someone else's account. It's 2019. You shouldn't launch a game platform without syncing saves to the account. Looking at you too, Oculus.

It's catching up and I haven't minded the platform for Borderlands, but I'd have felt better about using it if they'd had a more fully baked system to launch with.

I also don't love having yet another game store/updater/launcher platform, but that ship has sailed.

If that were the motivation, the publisher would sell on both platforms and just charge more on Steam due to the markup. That is never what happens. Epic is locking content creators into exclusive contracts, because their business model requires on-boarding tons of users onto their platform and they are willing the throw cash at the problem. Steam does not monopolize games. You can usually download them directly from the publisher and other retailers like Humble Bundle. Epic is uniquely hoarding high-profile releases. Unfortunately they are also providing a sub-par user experience, which is what a lot of the negativity stems from.

The steamworks agreement does not allow charging more on steam than on other platforms, while still retaining the ability to sell steam keys. If one wants to use steam keys, such as for use in a bundle, their documentation mentions:

> Please note that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

You can still charge less on other platforms and still use steam keys. You just can't charge less for steam keys. If you're selling on other platforms, use that platform's keys instead.

The problem is that on top of that Epic has been paying developers extra money to release exclusively on the Epic store (and in some cases it seems they've struck deals for the dev to just not release on steam specifically, but still release on other Epic store competitors). This seems like blatantly anti competitive behaviour to me and I don't want to support it.

If devs were just choosing to not release on steam because epic gives a bigger cut that would be fine, but that isn't the case.

My problem isn't with an alternate platform to Steam as I have bought things from both Gog and the Humble Store. My issue is with Epic exclusively and it is exclusivity.

To be specific I have issues with Epic offering exclusivity deals, especially to games that are KickStarter and had promised to release the product on other platforms. That's it. If games were only available on Epic because Epic offered a better cut I wouldn't take an issue with it.

You might say that in those cases the developers/publishers are more at fault than Epic is, which is fair. However it is kind of like sleeping with someone who is in a monogamous relationship vs. cheating. Sure it isn't as bad as cheating yourself, but I still view it as bad thing to do morally speaking.

That's how competition works - people voting with their wallets that the product sucks so much that being cheaper is not enough. Steam is competing with Epic store, and succeeding - for me it's the same, if it's exclusive to Epic store, then they apparently don't want my money because I'm not going to buy it there.

> because I'm not going to buy it there.

But why not?

That game is 'nice to have' but not a 'must have' for me, and the inconvenience of having to setup and use another sucky third party game store makes it not worth it. I tried Epic store once and didn't have a good experience, so I don't have it right now, it would be a bother to install it and remember the account/password, and in any case I don't want the bother of having my library split among multiple tools, having to remember which game is where, etc. I mean, it's not a big inconvenience, it is an inconvenience, and getting access to yet another game isn't a big benefit; if it was on Steam I'd likely try it because it seems interesting and the price is trivial but since it's not available in a way that's convenient for me, why bother?

In any case there are many more other interesting games out there than I have time for, there's some stuff in my Steam library that I have yet to play, so if some games aren't accessible in the way I prefer, then those will be among the games I'll skip. For the makers of the game their game probably is important and special, but for a customer like me it's not, the competition between games for my time is huge, there's so much good stuff out there that there's no possible reason to jump through hoops (even if they're not that difficult) to get to any particular game, so if any particular game is not in the place where it's most covenient for me, it might as well not exist. There are some exceptions for nostalgic reasons that have driven me to e.g. gog.com for a few games I enjoyed decades ago, but there really has to be a special reason to do so. There was a time in my life where I'd be eager to invest a lot of time and effort just to get a particular game (worldwide distribution of games on floppies and CDs was awkward to say at least) but that's not the case anymore. Especially for short niche/fad games like this one seems to be, their role is like that of an impulse buy or a comfort food - it has to be a 'click here, pay a dozen bucks, enjoy your stuff immediately' experience without having to bother with making yet another account and installing extra stuff that you have to care about.

Because their business model is that games are only available in their store so they are a cancer in the PC games industry. we dont need more walled gardens everywhere.

Because they don't have a Linux version of their client.

Valve and by extension Steam have built a very positive reputation.

IMO they have squandered a lot of it lately but they remain very popular and people are just extremely used to the steam launcher.

I for one am VERY happy that somebody is forcing Steam to stop being complacent and is competing on margins (30% is a LOT of money).

They're not competing on margins, they're "competing" by making game developers sign up for exclusivity deals.

How do you call the lower store fees ?

30% is not much when you consider that is an access to a huge market you buy. A larger market than any brick and mortar publisher ever provided when you were selling with physical game copies. Plus, they do not charge you for game updates, traffic, online gaming capabilities, etc...

It is much compared to 12% though ;)

I think it's less about the price and more about the fact that their 'winning strategy' seems to be to just throw money at exclusives until they win.

Maybe that's the push-back?

Aside from the Epic Games Store:

I don't mind purchasing games from Steam. I've purchased a game or two on the EA store. I don't know if I purchased anything on the Ubisoft store, but I know it's needed for some of their games. I've purchased games from the Microsoft Store.

I've purchased games from sites like Good old games, Humble Bundle.

I think in practical terms, it's a bit annoying to have different, heavy clients to use to have these different games. It'd be less of a hassle if they all had a Single Sign On, I guess. But, yeah, the vast majority of my games are on Steam and I only use the EA store when I want to play a game that's exclusive to that store.

It makes sense to say "but it's market competition, why would you dislike Epic", but I don't think it appeals to the gamer identity/ethos. Idk how many people actually care about it; it's probably a vocal minority.