And yet they couldn’t find the pocket change to keep the Unreal Tournament master servers up and games listed.
Okay, but any significant plans to make the launcher or store itself worth using?
Wondering the same… just last week i found out you cannot view your library in the web browser, only your transactions. Even after all this time.
It has to be 100% on purpose to make you get the launcher. I tried to check out my EA games, and a forum post said they used to have it on the web, but not anymore.
I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine. I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost. I think they’re making the smart move sticking to their wheelhouse.
I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine.
Does it? Lets envision the minimum viable product for a game store. You have a very basic web interface and you download games or installers from it. Something like itch.io, or similar to GOG. Is using Epic’s launcher better than just downloading the installers from a browser? I’d argue not, given the hastle of creating a new account, installing the launcher with all its spyware and using it, rather than the bare minimum of just downloading an installer, running it, and then running the game directly.
I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost.
Look at how other platforms have eaten into Steam’s control most successfully without resorting to anything too shady. Humble Bundle and Fanatical offer unique bundles with better deals. Itch.io works more closely with devs, esspecially smaller devs. GOG cut out a niche by specifically seeking out old games to licence or fix themselves, as well as by ensuring everything is DRM free.
None of these had even a fraction of the funding Epic did. Imagine if Epic spent their early years trying to replicate these practices rather than paying to remove stuff off other platforms. Instead of spending millions on exclusivity deals, they offered customers things like weekly discount bundles, a designated DRM free section on their store, or maybe a community games section with less moderation, meant for quick-and-easy publishing for new devs.
If that isn’t enough, and they aren’t busy spending ten or hundreds of millions on pissing off their potential customers, then they could also look at loyalty programs, better sales, or even just straight-up marketing for their platform and the games on it. Epic isn’t a small company and their store has been a major investment.
All of that is just easy, obvious stuff off the top of my head, none of which even affects the launcher. Implement even half of it, (without burning the bridge with your customers first) and I’m confident you’ll have a very strong competitor to Steam.
Does it? Lets envision the minimum viable product for a game store. You have a very basic web interface and you download games or installers from it. Something like itch.io, or similar to GOG. Is using Epic’s launcher better than just downloading the installers from a browser? I’d argue not, given the hastle of creating a new account, installing the launcher with all its spyware and using it, rather than the bare minimum of just downloading an installer, running it, and then running the game directly.
I support DRM free games too but I think you’re making a large assumption here that most people prefer that to one-click launcher install/updates/management.
Look at how other platforms have eaten into Steam’s control most successfully without resorting to anything too shady. Humble Bundle and Fanatical offer unique bundles with better deals. Itch.io works more closely with devs, esspecially smaller devs. GOG cut out a niche by specifically seeking out old games to licence or fix themselves, as well as by ensuring everything is DRM free.
I have seen no evidence of either Itch nor GOG eating Steam’s lunch. Quite the opposite. Steam continues to grow fast, while GOG is barely breaking even. I can’t find the financials for itch.io so I don’t know how well they’re doing.
Just to be clear, I would love for Epic to invest more into their launcher. I’m merely putting my product manager hat on and accepting that that is unlikely because the business case is bad.
i did my part. got about 40 of them last year.
epic freebies from 2024 played: 0
epic freebies from 2024 installed: 0
the only freebie of theirs i have installed right now is one of the CIVs.
Gotta think the vast majority go unplayed. Early on I was claiming them now and again, and the Subnautica giveaway was an absolute steal. Definitely something I had on my mental patient gamer list anyway.
Civ 6 was the biggest one for me. I missed GTA V though
Yeah, I’ve basically stopped caring about the free games at this point. I mean I have a very full library of games there but most I already own on steam of gog and I haven’t played any of them, even the ones during the recent holidays.
Right. At this point it feels a little like time wasted on collecting free games that never get played.
Steam is for paying for games that never get played. Most of us have hefty libraries.
That title makes it seem like they have made 600 million separate games free and not that they have had 600 million users claiming games they have given away free.
I suspect the contract means that they only actually pay for those that are played
Pretty sure it’s a fixed amount to the publisher/devs for unlimited licenses during the free period, but varies by popularity of the game, according to documents from the lawsuit against Apple
